HomeMy WebLinkAboutMarch 22, 2016 Agenda
!"#$$
!"'!()$ "$
%&'!()!*+, --. !/ )
0.- 1-2!3.4#5!67%8&
999)+ 1:;.- 1-)+1<
*)) $+!,+)$-.
! "#$% &
=#)3-. >!*.0%7!??>!?;@A9:;;!<*/"01!2)33 "$!4""5!6! "#$% &! 7.58)03
!"#$! !"%&'&'(# )* #*#+,-",%#&.#/"!.!' 0# )!#1& 2#1-,'3&4#- # )!#1& 2#- #5!' -'0#6!7*.#8&44#3-'9!'!#
&'#*#:-";#<!..&-'#-'#6,!.$*20#=*"3)#>>0#>?@A#* #BC??#/D%D#&'# )!#1-,'3&4#:-";#<!..&-'#E--%#* #1& 2#
F*440#>@G#HD#=3I&''!2#< "!! 0#5!' -'0#6!7*.#* #8)&3)# )!# -44-8&'(#& !%.#8&44#J!#3-'.&$!"!$C
!"!#$% &''$%"( &% &%($%" )*$%+, -"$'(
6)&.#.!3 &-'#- # )!#*(!'$*#*44-8.#3& &K!'.# -#./!*;#-'#1-'.!' # (!'$*#L !%.#-'42D##H*3)#./!*;!"#8&44#
J!#(&9!'#*# - *4#- # )"!!#MBN#%&', !.# -#*$$"!..#*'2#& !%.#)!O.)!#8&.)!.# )* #*"!#4&. !$#-'# )!#1-'.!' #
(!'$*D## #E!+,!. # -#</!*;#1*"$#.)-,4$#J!#3-%/4! !$#*'$#"! ,"'!$# -# )!#1& 2#<!3"! *"2#J! -"!#
1-,'3&4#3-'.&$!".# )&.#& !%D
. /$01$("( 2&3 45,3!2!4,"!&% &2 ,*$%+, !"$'( 5!("$+ &% "6$ ,*$%+, 2&3 7,346 ..8 .9 :
; <&3= >$((!&% /$?&3"(
L5#@AQR?SE!3!&9!#*#"!/-" 0#)-4$#*#$&.3,..&-'0#*'$#(&9!#. * #$&"!3 &-'#"!(*"$&'(# )!#1& 2P.#
)
J,$(! &'(0#"* !#.! &'(#*'$#3-. #"!3-9!"2#/"-3!..!.# -"#&' !"'*4#.!"9&3!# ,'$.#*'$#
, &4& 2# ,'$.#- # )!#1& 2D
!"#$ %&(4= > !&!?!@A;B. !CD.5.- # 1-
(4= > !%!?!CD1E.D !#-;!/#$.5!3#4!* 4
T-44-8&'(# )!#3-%/4! &-'#- # )!#:-";#<!..&-'0# )!#1& 2#1-,'3&4#8&44#3-'9!'!#&'#*#14-.!$#=!! &'(# -#
3-'.&$!"#./!3& &3#& !%.#8)!'# )!.!#& !%.#*"!#4&. !$#J!4-8#,'$!"# )!#14-.!$#=!! &'(#.!3 &-'#- # )&.#
*(!'$*D##6)!#1& 2#1-,'3&4#"!.!"9!.# )!#"&() # -#*$U-,"'#&' -#*#14-.!$#=!! &'(#-'#*'2#& !%#-'#& .#V/!'#
=!! &'(#*(!'$*#3-'.&. !' #8& )#1)*/ !"#GG@#- # )!#6!7*.#W-9!"'%!' #1-$!0#*.#*%!'$!$0#-"#*.#
- )!"8&.!#*44-8!$#J2#4*8D
5&($+ 7$$"!%*@
L5#@AQBRR
) 1!" *&'#X,J4&3#X-8!"#Y &4& &!.C#1-%/! & &9!#=* !".#Q#Y'$!"#6!7*.#W-9!"'%!' #
1-$!0#<!3 &-'#GG@D?ZA\[#*'$#1-'.,4 * &-'#8& )# -"'!2.#Q#Y'$!"#6!7*.#
W-9!"'%!' #1-$!0#<!3 &-'#GG@D?S@D
#
E!3!&9!#*#/"!.!' * &-'# "-%#5!' -'#=,'&3&/*4#H4!3 "&3#M\\5=H\]N#. * #"!(*"$&'(#
3!" *&'#/,J4&3#/-8!"#3-%/! & &9!0# &'*'3&*4#*'$#3-%%!"3&*4#&' -"%* &-'#"!4* &'(# -#
&..,!.#"!(*"$&'(#.,//-" 0#&%/4!%!' * &-'#*'$#-/!"* &-'#- #& .#H'!"(2#E&.;#
=*'*(!%!' #X-4&32# )* #$!*4.#8& )#J&$$&'(#*'$#/"&3&'(#&' -"%* &-'# -"#/,"3)*.!$#
/-8!"0#(!'!"* &-'#*'$# ,!40#*'$#H4!3 "&3#E!4&*J&4& 2#1-,'3&4#- #6!7*.#MHE1V6N#
J&$.0#/"&3!.0#- !".#*'$#"!4* !$#.!"9&3!.#*'$#. "* !(&!.D##1-'.,4 * &-'#8& )# )!#1& 2P.#
* -"'!2.#"!(*"$&'(#4!(*4#&..,!.#*..-3&* !$#8& )# )!#H'!"(2#E&.;#=*'*(!%!' #X-4&32#
8)!"!#*#/,J4&3#$&.3,..&-'#- # )!.!#4!(*4#%* !".#8-,4$#3-' 4&3 #8& )# )!#$, 2#- # )!#
1& 2P.#* -"'!2.# -# )!#1& 2#- #5!' -'#*'$# )!#5!' -'#1& 2#1-,'3&4#,'$!"# )!#6!7*.#
+, -)./)0#$ .$' (#)*)'1,$ #2).$)34*5467*8
! "#$% &*)) $+!,+)$-.*.0%7!??>!?;@A
5&.3&/4&'*"2#E,4!.#- #X"- !..&-'*4#1-'$,3 #- # )!#< * !#^*"#- #6!7*.0#-"#8-,4$#
U!-/*"$&K!# )!#1& 2P.#4!(*4#/-.& &-'#&'#*'2#/- !' &*4#4& &(* &-'D##5&.3,..0#$!4&J!"* !0#
*'$#/"-9&$!#. * #8& )#$&"!3 &-'D
A L5#@AQBSA1-'.,4 * &-'#8& )# -"'!2.#Q#Y'$!"#6!7*.#W-9!"'%!' #1-$!#<!3 &-'#GG@D?S@D#
1-'.,4 #8& )# )!#1& 2P.# -"'!2.#-'# )!#. * ,.0#. "* !(20#*'$#/- !' &*4#"!.-4, &-'#- #
)!#34*&%#- #E-..#=35-8!44D
L5#@AQR@A5!4&J!"* &-'.#"!(*"$&'(#E!*4#X"-/!" 2#Q#Y'$!"#6!7*.#W-9!"'%!' #1-$!#<!3 &-'#
GG@D?S>\[#1-'.,4 * &-'#8& )# -"'!2.#Q#Y'$!"#6!7*.#W-9!"'%!' #1-$!#<!3 &-'#
GG@D?S@D
E!3!&9!#&' -"%* &-'# "-%#. * 0#$&.3,..0#$!4&J!"* !0#*'$#/"-9&$!#. * #8& )#$&"!3 &-'#
"!(*"$&'(# )!#/- !' &*4#*3+,&.& &-'#- #"!*4#/"-/!" 2#4-3* !$#* #B?@#HD#=3I&''!20#
5!' -'0#6!7*.#8)!"!#$!4&J!"* &-'#&'#*'#-/!'#%!! &'(#8-,4$#)*9!#*#$! "&%!' *4#
! !3 #-'# )!#/-.& &-'#- # )!#(-9!"'%!' *4#J-$2#&'#'!(- &* &-'.#8& )#*# )&"$#/*" 2D##
1-'.,4 * &-'#8& )# )!#1& 2P.#* -"'!2.#"!(*"$&'(#4!(*4#&..,!.#*..-3&* !$#8& )# )!#
*3+,&.& &-'#- # )!#"!*4#/"-/!" 2#&' !"!. .#$!.3"&J!$#*J-9!#8)!"!#*#/,J4&3#$&.3,..&-'#
- # )!.!#4!(*4#%* !".#8-,4$#3-' 4&3 #8& )# )!#$, 2#- # )!#1& 2P.#* -"'!2.# -# )!#1& 2#
- #5!' -'#*'$# )!#5!' -'#1& 2#1-,'3&4#,'$!"# )!#6!7*.#5&.3&/4&'*"2#E,4!.#- #
X"- !..&-'*4#1-'$,3 #- # )!#< * !#^*"#- #6!7*.0#-"#8-,4$#U!-/*"$&K!# )!#1& 2P.#4!(*4#
/-.& &-'#&'#*'2#*$%&'&. "* &9!#/"-3!!$&'(#-"#/- !' &*4#4& &(* &-'D#_5!' -'#1-,' 2#
1-," )-,.!# ''!7#/"-/!" 2# "*3 M.N#Q#'-#*3 &-'#& !%`
L5#@AQR@Z1-'.,4 * &-'#8& )# -"'!2.#Q#Y'$!"#6!7*.#W-9!"'%!' #1-$!0#<!3 &-'#GG@D?S@\[##
B
5!4&J!"* &-'.#"!(*"$&'(#H3-'-%&3#5!9!4-/%!' #a!(- &* &-'.#Q#Y'$!"#6!7*.#
W-9!"'%!' #1-$!0#<!3 &-'#GG@D?ZSD
E!3!&9!#*#"!/-" #*'$#)-4$#*#$&.3,..&-'#"!(*"$&'(#4!(*4#*'$#!3-'-%&3#$!9!4-/%!' #
&..,!.#"!(*"$&'(#!3-'-%&3#$!9!4-/%!' #&'3!' &9!.# -"#*#J,.&'!..#/"-./!3 &9!#&'#
"!(*"$# -# )!#<*%,!40#<-'0#b#1-D#6)&.#$&.3,..&-'#.)*44#&'34,$!#3-%%!"3&*4#*'$#
&'*'3&*4#&' -"%* &-'# )!#1& 2#1-,'3&4#%*2#"!3!&9!# "-%# )!#J,.&'!..#-8'!".#8)&3)#
)!#1& 2#.!!;.# -#)*9!#4-3* !0#. *20#-"#!7/*'$#&'#-"#'!*"# )!# !""& -"2#- # )!#1& 20#*'$#
8& )#8)&3)# )!#1& 2#1-,'3&4#&.#3-'$,3 &'(#!3-'-%&3#$!9!4-/%!' #'!(- &* &-'.0#
&'34,$&'(# )!#- !"#- # &'*'3&*4#-"#- )!"#&'3!' &9!.D# 4.-#)-4$#*#$&.3,..&-'#8& )# )!#
1& 2P.#* -"'!2.#-'# )!#"! !"!'3!$# -/&3#8)!"!# )!#$, 2#- # )!#* -"'!2# -# )!#
(-9!"'%!' *4#J-$2#,'$!"# )!#6!7*.#5&.3&/4&'*"2#E,4!.#- #X"- !..&-'*4#1-'$,3 #- #
)!#< * !#^*"#- #6!7*.#34!*"42#3-' 4&3 .#8& )# )!#/"-9&.&-'.#- # )!#6!7*.#V/!'#
=!! &'(.# 3 0#1)*/ !"#GG@#- # )!#6!7*.#W-9!"'%!' #1-$!D
L5#@AQRB@1-'.,4 * &-'#8& )# -"'!2#Q#Y'$!"#6!7*.#W-9!"'%!' #1-$!0#<!3 &-'#GG@D?S@\[#
C
5!4&J!"* &-'.#"!(*"$&'(#H3-'-%&3#5!9!4-/%!' #a!(- &* &-'.#Q#Y'$!"#6!7*.#
W-9!"'%!' #1-$!#<!3 &-'#GG@D?ZSD#
E!3!&9!#*#"!/-" #*'$#)-4$#*#$&.3,..&-'#"!(*"$&'(#*#/"-/-.!$#!3-'-%&3#$!9!4-/%!' #
/"-("*%#("*' #*("!!%!' #J! 8!!'# )!#1& 2#- #5!' -'#*'$#:W^X#L'9!. %!' .0#
c65D##6)&.#$&.3,..&-'#.)*44#&'34,$!#3-%%!"3&*4#*'$# &'*'3&*4#&' -"%* &-'# )!#1& 2#
1-,'3&4#)*.#"!3!&9!$# "-%#:W^X#L'9!. %!' .0#c650#*#J,.&'!..#8)&3)# )!#1& 2#
+, -)./)0#$ .$' (#)6)'1,$ #2).$)34*5467*8
! "#$% &*)) $+!,+)$-.*.0%7!??>!?;@A
1-,'3&4#.!!;.# -#)*9!#4-3* !0#. *20#-"#!7/*'$#&'#-"#'!*"# )!# !""& -"2#- # )!#1& 20#*'$#
8& )#8)&3)# )!#1& 2#1-,'3&4#&.#3-'$,3 &'(#!3-'-%&3#$!9!4-/%!' #'!(- &* &-'.\[#
$!4&J!"* !# )!#!3-'-%&3#$!9!4-/%!' #/"-("*%#("*' #*("!!%!' #J! 8!!'# )!#1& 2#- #
5!' -'#*'$#:W^X#L'9!. %!' .0#c65D## 4.-0#)-4$#*#$&.3,..&-'#8& )# )!#1& 2P.#
* -"'!2.#-'# )!#"! !"!'3!$# -/&3#8)!"!# )!#$, 2#- # )!#* -"'!2# -# )!#(-9!"'%!' *4#
J-$2#,'$!"# )!#6!7*.#5&.3&/4&'*"2#E,4!.#- #X"- !..&-'*4#1-'$,3 #- # )!#< * !#^*"#- #
6!7*.#34!*"42#3-' 4&3 .#8& )# )!#/"-9&.&-'.#- # )!#6!7*.#V/!'#=!! &'(.# 3 0#
1)*/ !"#GG@#- # )!#6!7*.#W-9!"'%!' #1-$!D
ad#TLa c# 16LVa0#5H1L<LVa0#VE#eV6H#Va# #= 66HE#5HcL^HE 6H5#La# #1cV<H5#
=HH6LaW#:Lcc#Vacd#^H#6 IHa#La# a#VXHa#=HH6LaW#6F 6#L<#FHc5#La#1V=XcL a1H#
:L6F#6Hf <#WVeHEa=Ha6#1V5H0#1F X6HE#GG@0#Hf1HX6#6V#6FH#Hf6Ha6#<Y1F#TLa c#
16LVa0#5H1L<LVa0#VE#eV6H#L<#6 IHa#La#6FH#1cV<H5#=HH6LaW#La# 11VE5 a1H#
:L6F#6FH#XEVeL<LVa<#VT#gGG@D?ZA#VT#6FH#6Hf <#WVeHEa=Ha6#1V5H#M6FH#hXY^cL1#
XV:HE#Hf1HX6LVaPND##6FH#1L6d#1VYa1Lc#EH<HEeH<#6FH#ELWF6#6V# 5iVYEa#La6V# #
1cV<H5#=HH6LaW#VE#HfH1Y6LeH#<H<<LVa# <# Y6FVELjH5#^d#6HfD#WVeP6D#1V5H0#
gGG@D??@0#H6#<HkD#M6FH#6Hf <#VXHa#=HH6LaW<# 16N#Va# ad#L6H=#Va#L6<#VXHa#
=HH6LaW# WHa5 #VE#6V#EH1VaeHaH#La# #1Va6LaY 6LVa#VT#6FH#1cV<H5#=HH6LaW#
Va#6FH#1cV<H5#=HH6LaW#L6H=<#aV6H5# ^VeH0#La# 11VE5 a1H#:L6F#6FH#6Hf <#
VXHa#=HH6LaW<# 160#La1cY5LaW0#:L6FVY6#cL=L6 6LVa#gGG@D?S@QGG@D?ZA#VT#6FH#
6Hf <#VXHa#=HH6LaW<# 16D
</!3&*4#1*44!$#=!! &'(#- # )!#1& 2#- #5!' -'#1& 2#1-,'3&4#* #ACB?#/D%D#&'# )!#1-,'3&4#1)*%J!".#* #
1& 2#F*440#>@G#HD#=3I&''!2#< "!! 0#5!' -'0#6!7*.#* #8)&3)# )!# -44-8&'(#& !%.#8&44#J!#3-'.&$!"!$C
DECBFC GH )EECF-)I C
D##YD<D#T4*(
^D##6!7*.#T4*(
\\F-'-"# )!#6!7*.#T4*(#l#L#/4!$(!#*44!(&*'3!# -# )!!0#6!7*.0#-'!#. * !#,'$!"#W-$0#-'!#*'$#
&'$&9&.&J4!D\]
. D/G E)7)J-GI>KD/C>CIJ)J-GI>
L5#@AQR?A=*2-"P.#5*2#- #1-'3!"'# -"#=!' *4#F!*4 )#*'$# )-.!#8& )#L' !44!3 ,*4#5&.*J&4& &!.
)
; GI>CIJ )FCIB)
H*3)#- # )!.!#& !%.#&.#"!3-%%!'$!$#J2# )!#< * #*'$#*//"-9*4# )!"!- #8&44#J!#. "&3 42#-'# )!#J*.&.#- #
)!#< * #"!3-%%!'$* &-'.D## //"-9*4#- # )!#1-'.!' # (!'$*#*, )-"&K!.# )!#1& 2#=*'*(!"#-"#)&.#
$!.&('!!# -#&%/4!%!' #!*3)#& !%#&'#*33-"$*'3!#8& )# )!#< * #"!3-%%!'$* &-'.D##6)!#1& 2#1-,'3&4#
)*.#"!3!&9!$#J*3;("-,'$#&' -"%* &-'#*'$#)*.#)*$#*'#-//-" ,'& 2# -#"*&.!#+,!. &-'.#"!(*"$&'(# )!.!#
& !%.#/"&-"# -#3-'.&$!"* &-'D
c&. !$#J!4-8#*"!#J&$.0#/,"3)*.!#-"$!".0#3-' "*3 .0#*'$#- )!"#& !%.# -#J!#*//"-9!$#,'$!"# )!#1-'.!' #
(!'$*#M (!'$*#L !%.# #l#1ND##6)&.#4&. &'(#&.#/"-9&$!$#-'# )!#1-'.!' # (!'$*# -#*44-8#1-,'3&4#
=!%J!".# -#$&.3,..#-"#8& )$"*8#*'#& !%#/"&-"# -#*//"-9*4#- # )!#1-'.!' # (!'$*D##L #'-#& !%.#*"!#
/,44!$0#1-'.!' # (!'$*#L !%.# #l#1#J!4-8#8&44#J!#*//"-9!$#8& )#-'!#%- &-'D##L #& !%.#*"!#/,44!$# -"#
.!/*"* !#$&.3,..&-'0# )!2#%*2#J!#3-'.&$!"!$#*.# )!# &". #& !%.# -44-8&'(#*//"-9*4#- # )!#1-'.!' #
(!'$*D
L5#@AQR@G1-'.&$!"#*$-/ &-'#- #*'#-"$&'*'3!#!. *J4&.)&'(#/,J4&3#)!*"&'(#$* !.#*'$#*, )-"&K&'(#
)
)!#1& 2#<!3"! *"2# -#/,J4&.)#'- &3!# -"# /"&4#G0#>?@A0#*'$# /"&4#@>0#>?@A0# -"#
+, -)./)0#$ .$' (#)3)'1,$ #2).$)34*5467*8
! "#$% &*)) $+!,+)$-.*.0%7!??>!?;@A
*''!7* &-'#- #!&() #MZN#/"-/!" &!.0#&$!' & &!$#J2# )!# -44-8&'(#/"-/!" 2#&$!' & &3* &-'#
',%J!".#M5FQ>C#A?SGA#*'$#A?SGmN0#M5FQBC#R@GRSN0#MX @C#AG@>SZN0#MX BC#
B@GBBR#*'$#A?Sm?N#*'$#MX RC#>?>A@?#*'$#BSS>mN0#&'# )!#1& 2#- #5!' -'0#6!7*.D
!"#$ %&(4= > !&!?!0D#: !FD; -#-+.
A L5#@AQR@S1-'.&$!"#*$-/ &-'#- #*'#-"$&'*'3!#- # )!#1& 2#1-,'3&4#- # )!#1& 2#- #5!' -'0#6!7*.#
*, )-"&K&'(# )!#1& 2#=*'*(!"#-"#)&.#$!.&('!!# -#!7!3, !#*#4! !"#- #*("!!%!' # -"#
3-'.,4 &'(#.!"9&3!.#8& )# )!#^"* 4!#W"-,/0#L'3D# )* #&.#.,J. *' &*442#3-'.&. !' #8& )#
)!#.3-/!#- #8-";#"!3-%%!'$!$#J2# )!#1& 2#=*'*(!"# -# )!#1& 2#1-,'3&4#$,"&'(# )!#
8-";#.!..&-'#- # )!#1& 2#1-,'3&4#-'#T!J",*"2#@A0#>?@A0#&'#-"$!"# -#/!" -"%#*#
. ,$2O*'*42.&.#- # )!#E!'!8*J4!#5!' -'#X4*'#*'$#- )!"#-/ &-'.\[#/"-9&$&'(# -"# )!#
!7/!'$& ,"!#- # ,'$.\[#/"-9&$&'(#*'#! !3 &9!#$* !D
!"#$ %&(4= > !&!?!*#D+=!%-;!*.<1!G.-.9#>$.!0.- 1-!C$#-! 1-5A$ #- !/.$.+ 1-
(4= > !%!?!@D# $.!HD1AE!!IBD..<.-
(4= > !J!?!FD; -#-+.
L5#@AQR>A1-'.&$!"#*$-/ &-'#- #*'#-"$&'*'3!#- # )!#1& 2#- #5!' -'0#6!7*.#*, )-"&K&'(# )!#1& 2#
=*'*(!"# -#%*;!#*//4&3* &-'# -# )!#6!7*.#5!/*" %!' #- #F-,.&'(#*'$#1-%%,'& 2#
*&".#H%!"(!'32#<-4, &-'.#W"*' #X"-("*%#*'$# *;!#*44#- )!"#*3 &-'.#'!3!..*"2# -#
-J *&'#*'$#&%/4!%!' # )!#/"-("*%\[#*'$#/"-9&$&'(# -"#*'#! !3 &9!#$* !D
!"#$ %&(4= > !&!FD; -#-+.
L DMAE- NC)/-IF>
) L5#@AQR?BF-4$#*#/,J4&3#)!*"&'(# -#3-'.&$!"#*$-/ &-'#- #*'#-"$&'*'3!#- # )!#1& 2#- #5!' -'0#
6!7*.#*//"-9&'(# )!#4*'$#,.!#*..,%/ &-'.#*'$#*#3*/& *4#&%/"-9!%!' .#/4*'#,'$!"#
8)&3)#"-*$8*2#&%/*3 # !!.#%*2#J!#&%/-.!$# -"#$!.&('* !$#.!"9&3!#*"!*.\[#.! &'(#*#
$* !0# &%!0#*'$#/4*3!# -"#*#/,J4&3#)!*"&'(# -#3-'.&$!"#*$-/ &-'#- #"-*$8*2#&%/*3 #
!!.\[#*, )-"&K&'(#*'$#$&"!3 &'(# )!#1& 2#<!3"! *"2# -#/,J4&.)#'- &3!#- #.,3)#/,J4&3#
)!*"&'(\[#*'$#/"-9&$&'(#3-'. ",3 &-'#*'$#.!9!"*J&4& 2#34*,.!.D
!"#$ %&(4= > !&?G1#;!K<E#+ !L..!/.DM +.!ID.#!*#E
(4= > !%?,"I!0GIL3!G.E1D !1-!N#-;!O5.!I55A<E 1-5
(4= > !J?,"I!0GIL3!G.E1D !1-! #E #$!K<ED1M.<.- 5!C$#-
(4= > !P? KI !L -; -B5!1-!NOI!Q! KC
(4= > !'?FD; -#-+.
L5#@AQR@B1-' &',!#*#/,J4&3#)!*"&'(#*'$#3-'.&$!"#*$-/ &-'#- #*'#-"$&'*'3!#- # )!#1& 2#- #
A
5!' -'0#6!7*.#$!.&('* &'(#*#3!" *&'#*"!*#8& )&'# )!#3& 2#4&%& .#- #5!' -'#*.#:!. #
W* !#^,.&'!..#X*";#M:W^XN#L'9!. %!' .0#c65D#E!&'9!. %!' #j-'!#a-D#fLLL# -"#
3-%%!"3&*4O&'$,. "&*4# *7#*J* !%!' \[#!. *J4&.)&'(# )!#J-,'$*"&!.#- #.,3)#K-'!\[#
%*;&'(# &'$&'(.#"!+,&"!$#&'#*33-"$*'3!#8& )#1)*/ !".#B@>#- # )!#6!7*.#6*7#1-$!\[#
-"$*&'&'(#- )!"#%* !".#"!4* &'(# )!"! -\[#/"-9&$&'(#*#.!9!"*J&4& 2#34*,.!\[#/"-9&$&'(#
-"#"!/!*4\[#*'$#/"-9&$&'(#*'#! !3 &9!#$* !D
(4= > !&!G. -M.5 <.- !R1-.!FD; -#-+.
!"#$ %&
O -JC7> HG/ -IB-P-BM)E GI>-BC/)J-GI
+, -)./)0#$ .$' (#)9)'1,$ #2).$)34*5467*8
! "#$% &*)) $+!,+)$-.*.0%7!??>!?;@A
@GQ??@AJ1-'.&$!"#*$-/ &-'#- #*'#-"$&'*'3!#!. *J4&.)&'(#/,J4&3#)!*"&'(#$* !.#*'$#*, )-"&K&'(#
)
)!#1& 2#<!3"! *"2# -#/,J4&.)#'- &3!# -"# /"&4#G0#>?@A0#*'$# /"&4#@>0#>?@A0# -"#
*''!7* &-'#- #*'#*//"-7&%* !42#>BD>R#*3"!#/"-/!" 2#(!'!"*442#4-3* !$#-'# )!#8!. #
.&$!#- #W!!.4&'(#E-*$0#*//"-7&%* !42#S??# !! #.-, )#- #H*. #Y'&9!".& 2#5"&9!#MYD<D#
BZ?N0#8& )&'# )!#=-"!*,#T-""!. #<,"9!20# J. "*3 #a-D#R@S0#&'#5!' -'#1-,' 20#
6!7*.D
!"#$ %&(4= > !&?!N1+# 1-!*#E
(4= > !%?!R1- -B!*#E
(4= > !J?!FD; -#-+.
: GI EMB-IF -JC7>
D##Y'$!"#<!3 &-'#GG@D?R>#- # )!#6!7*.#V/!'#=!! &'(.# 3 0#"!./-'$# -#&'+,&"&!.# "-%# )!#1& 2#
1-,'3&4#-"# )!#/,J4&3#8& )#./!3& &3# *3 ,*4#&' -"%* &-'#-"#"!3& * &-'#- #/-4&320#-"#*33!/ #*#/"-/-.*4#
-#/4*3!# )!#%* !"#-'# )!#*(!'$*# -"#*'#,/3-%&'(#%!! &'(## a5##Y'$!"#<!3 &-'#GG@D?R@G#- # )!#
6!7*.#V/!'#=!! &'(.# 3 0#/"-9&$!#"!/-" .#*J-, #& !%.#- #3-%%,'& 2#&' !"!. #"!(*"$&'(#8)&3)#'-#
*3 &-'#8&44#J!# *;!'0# -#&'34,$!C#!7/"!..&-'.#- # )*';.0#3-'("* ,4* &-'.0#-"#3-'$-4!'3!\[#&' -"%* &-'#
"!(*"$&'(#)-4&$*2#.3)!$,4!.\[#*'#)-'-"*"2#-"#.*4, *"2#"!3-('& &-'#- #*#/,J4&3#- &3&*40#/,J4&3#
!%/4-2!!0#-"#- )!"#3& &K!'\[#*#"!%&'$!"#*J-, #*'#,/3-%&'(#!9!' #-"(*'&K!$#-"#./-'.-"!$#J2# )!#
(-9!"'&'(#J-$2\[#&' -"%* &-'#"!(*"$&'(#*#.-3&*40#3!"!%-'&*40#-"#3-%%,'& 2#!9!' #-"(*'&K!$#-"#
./-'.-"!$#J2#*'#!' & 2#- )!"# )*'# )!#(-9!"'&'(#J-$2# )* #8*.#* !'$!$#-"#&.#.3)!$,4!$# -#J!#
* !'$!$#J2#*#%!%J!"#- # )!#(-9!"'&'(#J-$2#-"#*'#- &3&*4#-"#!%/4-2!!#- # )!#%,'&3&/*4& 2\[#-"#*'#
*''-,'3!%!' #&'9-49&'(#*'#&%%&'!' # )"!* # -# )!#/,J4&3#)!*4 )#*'$#.* ! 2#- #/!-/4!#&'# )!#
%,'&3&/*4& 2# )* #)*.#*"&.!'#* !"# )!#/-. &'(#- # )!#*(!'$*D
^D##X-..&J4!#1-' &',* &-'#- #14-.!$#=!! &'(# -/&3.0#*J-9!#/-. !$D
1#H#E#6#L#T#L#1# #6#H
L#3!" & 2# )* # )!#*J-9!#'- &3!#- #%!! &'(#8*.#/-. !$#-'# )!#J,44! &'#J-*"$#* # )!#1& 2#F*44#- # )!#1& 2#- #
5!' -'0#6!7*.0#-'# )!#nnnnnnnn$*2#- #nnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnn0#>?@A#* #nnnnnnnn-o34-3;#M*D%DN#M/D%DN
nnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnn
1L6d#<H1EH6 Ed
aV6HC6FH#1L6d#VT#5Ha6Va#1L6d#1VYa1Lc#:VEI#<H<<LVa#EVV=# a5#1VYa1Lc#
1F =^HE<# EH# 11H<<L^cH#La# 11VE5 a1H#:L6F#6FH# =HEL1 a<#:L6F#
5L< ^LcL6LH<# 16D##6FH#1L6d#:Lcc#XEVeL5H#<LWa#c aWY WH#La6HEXEH6HE<#TVE#6FH#
FH ELaW#L=X LEH5#LT#EHkYH<6H5# 6#cH <6#RZ#FVYE<#La# 5e a1H#VT#6FH#
<1FH5YcH5#=HH6LaWD##XcH <H#1 cc#6FH#1L6d#<H1EH6 Edo<#VTTL1H# 6#BRmQZB?m#VE#
Y<H#6HcH1V==YaL1 6LVa<#5HeL1H<#TVE#6FH#5H T#M655N#^d#1 ccLaW#@QZ??
QEHc dQ6f#<V#6F 6# #<LWa#c aWY WH#La6HEXEH6HE#1 a#^H#<1FH5YcH5#6FEVYWF#
6FH#1L6d#<H1EH6 EdP<#VTTL1HD
+, -)./)0#$ .$' (#):)'1,$ #2).$)34*5467*8
City Hall
City of Denton
215 E. McKinney St.
Denton, Texas 76201
www.cityofdenton.com
Legislation Text
File #:ID 16-407,Version:1
Agenda Information Sheet
DEPARTMENT:Finance
ACM:Bryan Langley
Date:March 22, 2016
SUBJECT
Receiveareport,holdadiscussion,andgivestaffdirectionregardingtheCity’sbudgeting,ratesettingandcost
recovery processes for internal service funds and utility funds of the City.
BACKGROUND
ThepurposeofthisworksessionistocontinuediscussionsandpresentationsontheFY2016-17budget.The
presentationattachedasExhibit1isageneraloverviewoftheCity’sinternalservicefundsandutilityfunds.
Topicswillincludethedevelopmentofthesebudgets,rateandcostrecoverymethodologyandtheir
relationshiptootherfundsoftheCity.AlsoattachedtothisreportasExhibit2isatabledisplayingthetenyear
historyofpropertytaxesandsalestaxesasapercentageofGeneralFundrevenues.Thisinformationwas
requestedduringtheMarch1,2016worksessionmeeting.Severaladditionalbudgetpresentationsare
scheduledoverthenextseveralmonthsleadinguptothepresentationoftheCityManager’sproposedbudgetat
th
the August 4 budget work session.
STRATEGIC PLAN RELATIONSHIP
TheCityofDenton’sStrategicPlanisanaction-orientedroadmapthatwillhelptheCityachieveitsvision.
Thefoundationfortheplanisthefivelong-termKeyFocusAreas(KFA):OrganizationalExcellence;Public
Infrastructure;EconomicDevelopment;Safe,Livable,andFamily-FriendlyCommunity;andSustainabilityand
EnvironmentalStewardship.WhileindividualitemsmaysupportmultipleKFAs,thisspecificCityCouncil
agenda item contributes most directly to the following KFA and goal:
Related Key Focus Area:Organizational Excellence
Related Goal:1.1 Manage financial resources in a responsible manner
EXHIBITS
Exhibit 1: Budget Presentation
Exhibit 2: Property and Sales Tax Table
Respectfully submitted:
Chuck Springer, 349-8260
Director of Finance
City of DentonPage 1 of 2Printed on 3/17/2016
powered by Legistar™
File #:ID 16-407,Version:1
City of DentonPage 2 of 2Printed on 3/17/2016
powered by Legistar™
City Hall
City of Denton
215 E. McKinney St.
Denton, Texas 76201
www.cityofdenton.com
Legislation Text
File #:ID 16-344,Version:1
Agenda Information Sheet
SUBJECT
CertainPublicPowerUtilities:CompetitiveMatters-UnderTexasGovernmentCode,Section551.086;and
Consultation with Attorneys - Under Texas Government Code, Section 551.071.
ReceiveapresentationfromDentonMunicipalElectric(“DME”)staffregardingcertainpublicpower
competitive,financialandcommercialinformationrelatingtoissuesregardingsupport,implementationand
operationofitsEnergyRiskManagementPolicythatdealswithbiddingandpricinginformationforpurchased
power,generationandfuel,andElectricReliabilityCouncilofTexas(ERCOT)bids,prices,offersandrelated
servicesandstrategies.ConsultationwiththeCity’sattorneysregardinglegalissuesassociatedwiththeEnergy
RiskManagementPolicywhereapublicdiscussionoftheselegalmatterswouldconflictwiththedutyofthe
City’sattorneystotheCityofDentonandtheDentonCityCouncilundertheTexasDisciplinaryRulesof
ProfessionalConductoftheStateBarofTexas,orwouldjeopardizetheCity’slegalpositioninanypotential
litigation. Discuss, deliberate, and provide staff with direction.
City of DentonPage 1 of 1Printed on 3/17/2016
powered by Legistar™
City Hall
City of Denton
215 E. McKinney St.
Denton, Texas 76201
www.cityofdenton.com
Legislation Text
File #:ID 16-376,Version:1
Agenda Information Sheet
SUBJECT
Consultation with Attorneys - Under Texas Government Code Section 551.071.
ConsultwiththeCity’sAttorneysonthestatus,strategy,andpotentialresolutionoftheclaimofRoss
McDowell.
City of DentonPage 1 of 1Printed on 3/17/2016
powered by Legistar™
City Hall
City of Denton
215 E. McKinney St.
Denton, Texas 76201
www.cityofdenton.com
Legislation Text
File #:ID 16-416,Version:1
Agenda Information Sheet
SUBJECT
DeliberationsregardingRealProperty-UnderTexasGovernmentCodeSection551.072;Consultationwith
Attorneys - Under Texas Government Code Section 551.071.
Receiveinformationfromstaff,discuss,deliberate,andprovidestaffwithdirectionregardingthepotential
acquisitionofrealpropertylocatedat301E.McKinney,Denton,Texaswheredeliberationinanopenmeeting
wouldhaveadetrimentaleffectonthepositionofthegovernmentalbodyinnegotiationswithathirdparty.
ConsultationwiththeCity’sattorneysregardinglegalissuesassociatedwiththeacquisitionoftherealproperty
interestsdescribedabovewhereapublicdiscussionoftheselegalmatterswouldconflictwiththedutyofthe
City’sattorneystotheCityofDentonandtheDentonCityCouncilundertheTexasDisciplinaryRulesof
ProfessionalConductoftheStateBarofTexas,orwouldjeopardizetheCity’slegalpositioninany
administrativeproceedingorpotentiallitigation.\[DentonCountyCourthouseAnnexpropertytract(s)-no
action item\]
City of DentonPage 1 of 1Printed on 3/17/2016
powered by Legistar™
City Hall
City of Denton
215 E. McKinney St.
Denton, Texas 76201
www.cityofdenton.com
Legislation Text
File #:ID 16-418,Version:1
Agenda Information Sheet
SUBJECT
ConsultationwithAttorneys-UnderTexasGovernmentCode,Section551.071;Deliberationsregarding
Economic Development Negotiations - Under Texas Government Code, Section 551.087.
Receiveareportandholdadiscussionregardinglegalandeconomicdevelopmentissuesregardingeconomic
developmentincentivesforabusinessprospectiveinregardtotheSamuel,Son,&Co.Thisdiscussionshall
includecommercialandfinancialinformationtheCityCouncilmayreceivefromthebusinessownerswhich
theCityseekstohavelocate,stay,orexpandinorneartheterritoryoftheCity,andwithwhichtheCity
Councilisconductingeconomicdevelopmentnegotiations,includingtheofferoffinancialorotherincentives.
AlsoholdadiscussionwiththeCity’sattorneysonthereferencedtopicwherethedutyoftheattorneytothe
governmentalbodyundertheTexasDisciplinaryRulesofProfessionalConductoftheStateBarofTexas
clearlyconflictswiththeprovisionsoftheTexasOpenMeetingsAct,Chapter551oftheTexasGovernment
Code.
City of DentonPage 1 of 1Printed on 3/17/2016
powered by Legistar™
City Hall
City of Denton
215 E. McKinney St.
Denton, Texas 76201
www.cityofdenton.com
Legislation Text
File #:ID 16-431,Version:1
Agenda Information Sheet
SUBJECT
ConsultationwithAttorney-UnderTexasGovernmentCode,Section551.071;Deliberationsregarding
Economic Development Negotiations - Under Texas Government Code Section 551.087.
Receiveareportandholdadiscussionregardingaproposedeconomicdevelopmentprogramgrantagreement
betweentheCityofDentonandWGBPInvestments,LTD.Thisdiscussionshallincludecommercialand
financialinformationtheCityCouncilhasreceivedfromWGBPInvestments,LTD,abusinesswhichtheCity
Councilseekstohavelocate,stay,orexpandinorneartheterritoryoftheCity,andwithwhichtheCity
Councilisconductingeconomicdevelopmentnegotiations;deliberatetheeconomicdevelopmentprogram
grantagreementbetweentheCityofDentonandWGBPInvestments,LTD.Also,holdadiscussionwiththe
City’sattorneysonthereferencedtopicwherethedutyoftheattorneytothegovernmentalbodyunderthe
TexasDisciplinaryRulesofProfessionalConductoftheStateBarofTexasclearlyconflictswiththeprovisions
of the Texas Open Meetings Act, Chapter 551 of the Texas Government Code.
City of DentonPage 1 of 1Printed on 3/17/2016
powered by Legistar™
City Hall
City of Denton
215 E. McKinney St.
Denton, Texas 76201
www.cityofdenton.com
Legislation Text
File #:ID 16-406,Version:1
Agenda Information Sheet
SUBJECT
Mayor’s Day of Concern for Mental Health and those with Intellectual Disabilities
City of DentonPage 1 of 1Printed on 3/17/2016
powered by Legistar™
City Hall
City of Denton
215 E. McKinney St.
Denton, Texas 76201
www.cityofdenton.com
Legislation Text
File #:ID 16-415,Version:1
AGENDA INFORMATION SHEET
DEPARTMENT:Department of Development Services
ACM:Jon Fortune
DATE:March 22, 2016
SUBJECT
ConsideradoptionofanordinanceestablishingpublichearingdatesandauthorizingtheCitySecretaryto
publishnoticeforApril5,2016,andApril12,2016,forannexationofeight(8)properties,identifiedbythe
followingpropertyidentificationnumbers(DH-2:60756and60759),(DH-3:41547),(PAA1:651278),(PAA3:
315334 and 60790) and (PAA4: 202610 and 37729), in the City of Denton, Texas.
BACKGROUND
OnFebruary22,2016,theCityCouncilapprovedanordinancesettingdates,time,andplaceforpublic
hearingsonproposedannexationsinvolvingannexationareasDH1,DH2,DH3,DH4,DH5,DH14,PAA1,
PAA2,PAA3,andPAA4.Atthattime,eightpropertieswereinadvertentlyomittedfromtheoriginalmailingof
the Notice of Intent to Annex. They have now been properly notified and public hearing dates can be set.
DH2
Property ID 60756
Property ID 60759
DH3
Property ID 41547
PAA1
Property ID 651278
PAA3
Property ID 315334
Property ID 60790
PAA4
Property ID 202610
Property ID 37729
TocomplywithTx.LGCrequirementsanewordinancesettingnewdates,time,andplacemustbeapproved.
TheproposedhearingdatesarescheduledforTuesday,April5,2016andTuesday,April12,2016at6:30p.m.
City of DentonPage 1 of 2Printed on 3/17/2016
powered by Legistar™
File #:ID 16-415,Version:1
in the City of Denton City Council Chambers, 215 E. McKinney Street, Denton, Texas.
Oncetheordinanceisapproved,theNoticeofPublicHearingdateswillbesenttothepropertyownersand
published on the City’s website.
OPTIONS
1.Approve as submitted.
2.Approve subject to conditions.
3.Deny.
4.Postpone consideration.
5.Table item.
STRATEGIC PLAN RELATIONSHIP
TheCityofDenton’sStrategicPlanisanaction-orientedroadmapthatwillhelptheCityachieveitsvision.
Thefoundationfortheplanisthefivelong-termKeyFocusAreas(KFA):OrganizationalExcellence;Public
Infrastructure;EconomicDevelopment;Safe,Livable,andFamily-FriendlyCommunity;andSustainabilityand
EnvironmentalStewardship.WhileindividualitemsmaysupportmultipleKFAs,thisspecificCityCouncil
agenda item contributes most directly to the following KFA and goal:
Related Key Focus Area:Economic Development
Related Goal:3.4 Encourage development, redevelopment, recruitment, and retention
EXHIBITS
1.Draft Ordinance
Respectfully submitted:
Aimee Bissett
Director of Development Services
Prepared by:
Ron Menguita, AICP
Long Range Planning Administrator
City of DentonPage 2 of 2Printed on 3/17/2016
powered by Legistar™
City Hall
City of Denton
215 E. McKinney St.
Denton, Texas 76201
www.cityofdenton.com
Legislation Text
File #:ID 16-417,Version:1
Agenda Information Sheet
DEPARTMENT:City Manager’s Office
CM:George Campbell, 940-349-8307
Date:March 22, 2016
SUBJECT
ConsideradoptionofanordinanceoftheCityCounciloftheCityofDenton,TexasauthorizingtheCity
ManagerorhisdesigneetoexecutealetterofagreementforconsultingserviceswiththeBrattleGroup,Inc.
thatissubstantiallyconsistentwiththescopeofworkrecommendedbytheCityManagertotheCityCouncil
duringtheworksessionoftheCityCouncilonFebruary16,2016,inordertoperformastudy/analysisofthe
Renewable Denton Plan and other options; providing for the expenditure of funds; providing an effective date.
BACKGROUND
During the City Council Work Session on February 16 the City Council reviewed and expressed unanimous
agreement with the Scope of Work to be used as the basis for engaging a consultant to review the Renewable
Denton Plan (RDP) and to make recommendations regarding that plan and/or other options for achieving the
City’s objectives with regard to our long term energy portfolio. Pursuant to that discussion Council requested
that the City Manager evaluate the qualifications and availability of various consultants who meet the
credentials as presented to Council.
The City Manager has identified the following three firms that have adequate resources and experience in all
areas of energy options to meet the needs of the City of Denton and the expertise to make recommendations for
integrating renewables into Denton’s portfolio. As part of the research of these firms, identification was
requested of the project managers and team members who would be assigned to this engagement. The three
firms are listed below and, based upon the credentials of those who would perform the work, the City Manager
recommends entering into contract negotiations with the Brattle Group.
1.The Brattle Group
2.Navigant
3.Deloitte
RECOMMENDATION
While all three firms are clearly capable of performing the work, the City Manager is recommending the Brattle
Group, in part, because their principle offices are outside of Texas and would thus represent an objective
assessment of all the elements of the Scope of Work to be performed.
EXHIBITS
nd
Exhibit 1: March 2 Memo RDP Consultant selection (without attachments)
City of DentonPage 1 of 2Printed on 3/17/2016
powered by Legistar™
File #:ID 16-417,Version:1
Exhibit 2: Brattle Group Agreement
Exhibit 3: Ordinance
Respectfully submitted:
George Campbell
City Manager
City of DentonPage 2 of 2Printed on 3/17/2016
powered by Legistar™
MEMORANDUM
DATE: March 2, 2016
TO: Mayor and City Council Members
FROM: George Campbell, City Manager
SUBJECT: Renewable Denton Plan Consultant Selection
During the City Council Work Session on February 16 the City Council reviewed and expressed
unanimous agreement with the Scope of Work to be used as the basis for engaging a consultant
to review the Renewable Denton Plan (RDP) and to make recommendations regarding that plan
and/or other opti
portfolio. Pursuant to that discussion Council requested that the City Manager evaluate the
qualifications and availability of various consultants who meet the credentials as presented to
Council. Those qualifications agreed upon were:
The consultant will need to possess the knowledge and experience below and meet criteria as
follows:
ERCOT and nodal market Record of previously completed projects that have resulted in
an imple
Electric generation technologies including storage and natural gas. The consultant chosen
should also be able to assess the current RDP based upon his/her knowledge and
experience as measured in comparison to other technologies including residential and
commercial rooftop solar, battery storage, compressed air storage, pumped hydro storage
and liquefied air storage.
Consideration of demand response and energy efficiency as strategies to help Denton
increase renewable power while protecting rates and reliability.
Experience and proven record for implementing plans and strategies and operating in the
market space with responsibility/accountability for P&L. Knowledgeable about current
best practices in integrating renewables into an ERCOT utility portfolioto serve load while
minimizing both rate impacts and risks.
I have now identified the following three firms that are well qualified and available to meet the
expressed needs of the City Council. These three firms have adequate resources and experience
in all areas of energy options to meet the needs of the City of Denton and the expertise to make
researching the firms I
have asked specifically for identification of the project managers and team members who would
be assigned to this engagement given the Scope of Work that was recommended to and agreed
upon by Council. The three firms are listed below and it is my recommendation, based upon the
EX 1
credentials of those who would perform the work, that I enter into contract negotiations with the
Brattle Group.
1. The Brattle Group (website)
2. Navigant (website)
3. Deloitte (website)
Attached is a short description of the Brattle Group followed by a more detailed work history and
experience resume of the two Principals who will, if Brattle is selected, perform the Scope of
Work. Links to the web site of all three firms is included above in the event you wish to view
more detail on all three firms. While all three firms are clearly capable of performing the work I
am recommending the Brattle Group, in part, because their principle offices are outside of Texas
and I think would clearly represent an objective assessment of all the elements of the Scope of
Work to be performed.
If Council is comfortable with the recommendation to engage the Brattle Group, I will proceed
by initiating contract negotiations with them to perform the Scope of Work. Until I enter into
those negotiations I will not know the engagement cost. If the cost for the consultant exceeds
$250,000, Council approval will be necessary. For your convenience, the agreed upon Scope of
Work is shown below.
Scope of Work
The Consultant shall perform the following in a professional manner:
Review of the Renewable Denton Plan (the Plan).Consultant will read and review
applicable charts, graphs, narratives, cost estimates, spreadsheets, and other materials,
and discuss with DME staff as necessary to understand the elements and logic of the
Plan.
Review other options considered by DME to serve load with an increasingly renewable
portfolio. Consultant will review applicable charts, graphs, narratives, cost estimates,
spreadsheets, and other materials, and discuss with DME staff as necessary to understand
the alternatives to the Plan that have been researched.
Determine what alternatives should be considered that would meet the Council direction
regarding renewables, rates, and reliability. Consultant will identify risks, and determine
whether DME should make modifications or explore other alternatives.
Report findings to Denton City Council. Consultant will create an Executive Summary of
their findings, and present their findings to the City Council
Iwould appreciate your response to this recommendation by Tuesday, March 8in order
that we may move the project ahead in a timely manner. Please give me a call if you have other
questions.
EX 1
EX 2
EX 2
EX 2
EX 2
EX 2
EX 2
EX 2
EX 2
EX 2
EX 2
EX 2
EX 3
EX 3
City Hall
City of Denton
215 E. McKinney St.
Denton, Texas 76201
www.cityofdenton.com
Legislation Text
File #:ID 16-426,Version:1
Agenda Information Sheet
DEPARTMENT:Community Improvement
CM/ ACM:John Cabrales, Jr.
Date:March 22, 2016
SUBJECT
ConsideradoptionofanordinanceoftheCityofDenton,TexasauthorizingtheCityManagertomake
applicationtotheTexasDepartmentofHousingandCommunityAffairsEmergencySolutionsGrantProgram
and take all other actions necessary to obtain and implement the program; and providing for an effective date.
BACKGROUND
TheTexasDepartmentofHousingandCommunityAffairs(TDHCA)hasreleasedtheNoticeofFunding
Availability(NOFA)forEmergencySolutionsGrant(ESG)thatprovidesassistancetothehomelessandthose
at-risk of becoming homeless.
TheCityofDenton,asLeadAgencyinacollaborativeapplicationwithfour(4)partneragencies,hasbeen
awardedtheESGgrantformultipleyearsreceivingincreasingfundingeachyearoftheaward.Theawardhas
grownfrom$309,430inthefirstyeartheCitywasawardedin2009to$600,339in2015-16ESGfunding.ESG
fundsareleveragedtosupporttheservicesoffourDentonCountyagenciesthatprovideassistancetothe
homelessandthoseat-riskofbecominghomeless.Thefour(4)partneragenciesareChristianCommunity
Action (CCA), Denton County Friends of the Family, Giving HOPE Inc., and The Salvation Army-Denton.
OPTIONS
DirectstafftogoforwardandapplyfortheEmergencySolutionsGrantasLeadAgencyonbehalfof
partners.
DirectstaffnottogoforwardandapplyfortheEmergencySolutionGrantasLeadAgencyonbehalfof
partners.
RECOMMENDATION
Direct staff to go forward and apply for the Emergency Solutions Grant.
ESTIMATED SCHEDULE OF PROJECT
The ESG award term is from October 1, 2016 to September 30, 2017.
PRIOR ACTION/REVIEW (Council, Boards, Commissions)
TheTexasHomelessNetwork,thedesignatedleadorganizationforthefederallyrecognizedContinuumof
Care, reviewed and supports local participation in the Emergency Solutions Grant Program application.
City of DentonPage 1 of 2Printed on 3/17/2016
powered by Legistar™
File #:ID 16-426,Version:1
FISCAL INFORMATION
TheEmergencySolutionsGrantProgram(ESG)isacollaborativeeffort.TheCityactsasleadagencyand
nearly100%ofESGfundspassthroughtocollaborativepartnersChristianCommunityAction(CCA),Denton
CountyFriendsoftheFamily,GivingHOPEInc.,andTheSalvationArmy-Denton.ESGrequiresa100%
match.Thematchwillconsistofemployeesalaries,donatedfacilities,donatedsupplies,cashdonations,and
volunteerhours.Thematchwillbeprovidedprimarilybythepartnersbut,couldalsoincludeCommunity
Development staff salaries.
BID INFORMATION
N/A
STRATEGIC PLAN RELATIONSHIP
TheCityofDenton’sStrategicPlanisanaction-orientedroadmapthatwillhelptheCityachieveitsvision.
Thefoundationfortheplanisthefivelong-termKeyFocusAreas(KFA):OrganizationalExcellence;Public
Infrastructure;EconomicDevelopment;Safe,Livable,andFamily-FriendlyCommunity;andSustainabilityand
EnvironmentalStewardship.WhileindividualitemsmaysupportmultipleKFAs,thisspecificCityCouncil
agenda item contributes most directly to the following KFA and goal:
Related Key Focus Area:Safe, Liveable & Family-Friendly Community
RelatedGoal:4.5Providesupporttocitizensinneedthroughsocialserviceagenciesand
programs
EXHIBITS
Proposed Ordinance
Respectfully submitted:
Barbara Ross
Community Development Manager
Prepared by:
Danielle Shaw
Human Services Coordinator
City of DentonPage 2 of 2Printed on 3/17/2016
powered by Legistar™
City Hall
City of Denton
215 E. McKinney St.
Denton, Texas 76201
www.cityofdenton.com
Legislation Text
File #:ID 16-403,Version:1
Agenda Information Sheet
DEPARTMENT:Utility Administration
CM/ ACM:Howard Martin, 349-8232
Date:March 22, 2016
SUBJECT
HoldapublichearingtoconsideradoptionofanordinanceoftheCityofDenton,Texasapprovingthelanduse
assumptionsandacapitalimprovementsplanunderwhichroadwayimpactfeesmaybeimposedfordesignated
serviceareas;settingadate,time,andplaceforapublichearingtoconsideradoptionofroadwayimpactfees;
authorizinganddirectingtheCitySecretarytopublishnoticeofsuchpublichearing;andproviding
construction and severability clauses.
BACKGROUND
Land Use Assumptions
InordertoassesstheRoadImpactFees,LandUseAssumptionsmustbedevelopedtoprovidethebasisfor
populationandemploymentgrowthprojectionswithinapoliticalsubdivision.AsdefinedbyChapter395ofthe
TexasLocalGovernmentCode,theseassumptionsincludeadescriptionofchangesinlanduses,densities,and
populationintheservicearea.Thelanduseassumptionsarethenusedindeterminingtheneedandtimingof
transportationimprovementstoservefuturedevelopment.ThemaximumRoadwayImpactFeedeterminationis
required to be based on the projected growth and corresponding capacity needs in a 10-year window.
TheLandUseAssumptionsaredeterminedforeachimpactfeeServiceAreainthecorporatelimitsofthecity.
AServiceAreaisageographicareawithinwhichauniquemaximumimpactfeeisdetermined.Allfeescollected
withintheServiceAreamustbespentoneligibleimprovementswithinthesameServiceArea.ForRoadImpact
Fees,theServiceAreamaynotexceed6miles.InDenton,thisrestrictionnecessitatedthecreationof5separate
ServiceAreas.IndefiningtheServiceAreaboundaries,theprojectteamconsideredthecorporateboundary,
required size limit, adjacent land uses, and topography.
Thegeographicboundaryofeachoftheproposedimpactfeeserviceareasfortransportationfacilitiesisshown
inExhibit1.Forroadwayfacilities,theserviceareasasrequiredbystatelawarelimitedtoareaswithinthe
currentcorporatelimits.Therefore,areaswithintheextraterritorialjurisdiction(ETJ)andnon-annexationareas
(NAAs) are excluded from this study.
Information from the following sources was compiled to complete the land use assumptions:
Future Land Use Plan per Denton Plan 2030 (City of Denton Comprehensive Plan)
Denton County Appraisal District (DCAD)
North Central Texas Council of Governments (NCTCOG)
City of Denton staff
City of DentonPage 1 of 4Printed on 3/17/2016
powered by Legistar™
File #:ID 16-403,Version:1
Thefollowingreasonableandgenerallyacceptedplanningprincipleswereconsideredindevelopingthe
residential and non-residential growth projections:
Character, type, density, and quantity of existing development;
Current zoning plans;
Future Land Use Plan (based on Denton Plan 2030);
Growth trends;
Location of vacant land;
Physical restrictions (i.e. flood plains, railroads); and
Physical development capacity of Denton
UsingtheFutureLandUsePlan(FLUP)andtheabovefactorsthe10-YearLandUseAssumptions(LUA)
weredevelopedasshowninExhibit2.Table1belowsummarizestheresidentialandemployment10-year
growthprojectionsasdevelopedfromtheLUA.Duringthelasttenyears,approximately9,516residential
unitsand12millionsquarefeetofemploymentweredevelopedinDenton.Theprojectedgrowthoverthenext
ten years as shown in Table 1 is reasonable compared to the historical growth over the previous ten years.
Table 1
Residential and Employment 10-Year Projections
ResidentialEmployment
Single FamilyMulti-FamilyBasicServiceRetail
Service Area
Sq. Ft.Sq. Ft.Sq. Ft.
Dwelling Units
3,7131,890
A3,685,975960,894681,432
B909211618,91532,021419,263
C1,033832680,5371,222,7222,530,669
D702187850,814193,124466,617
E3901,099732,9321,014,708897,984
Sub-Total 6,7484,2196,569,1733,423,4694,995,965
Total
10,96614,988,607
Capital Improvements Plan
The10-yearLandUseAssumptions,theupdatedMobilityPlan,andthetrafficvolumesdeterminedfromtheTravel
DemandModelontheDentonroadnetworkarethebasisofdevelopingthe10-yearRoadImpactFeeCapital
ImprovementsPlan.TheUpdatedMobilityPlanandtheTravelDemandModelwereadoptedinPublicHearingsbythe
Planning and Zoning Commission and the City Council.
TheFutureLandUsePlanaspreparedbythePlanningdepartment’sconsultantwasfleshedoutbytheconsultantKimley-
HornandAssociates,Inc.(KHA)toprojectfuturevehicletripsbasedonthe10-yearLandUseAssumptions.Usingthe
ProposedMobilityPlanandtheTravelDemandModelresultsthen,KHAhasanalyzedtheexistingcapacityoftheroads
andprojectedthecapacityrequirementsforthe10-yearimpactfeeplanningwindowbasedonthetrafficgeneratedfrom
the10-yearLandUseAssumptions.Basedontheexistingcapacityavailableandtheprojectedcapacityrequired,KHA
thendevelopeda10-yearRoadImpactFeeCapitalImprovementsPlan(CIP)thatincludestheextentsoftheprojectsand
theestimatedcostsineachofthefiveServiceAreas(Exhibit3).ThisCIPthenbecomesthebasisofcalculatingtheRoad
ImpactFeesfornewdevelopment’simpactontheDentonroadwaysystem.ThedetailofallprojectsincludedintheCIP
ineachoftheServiceAreasandthecostofeachprojectisshowninExhibit3.AsummarycostoftheCIPforthe10-year
City of DentonPage 2 of 4Printed on 3/17/2016
powered by Legistar™
File #:ID 16-403,Version:1
horizon is shown below for the five Service Areas established for the implementation of the Road Impact Fees;
Service AreaABCDE
$136,794,776$15,438,296$90,380,084$27,694,125$60,038,206
Recoverable Cost of Roadway
Impact Fee CIP and Financing
Road Impact Fee Adoption Process
Chapter395oftheTexasLocalGovernmentCodestipulatesaspecificprocessfortheadoptionofRoadImpact
Fees.TheCapitalImprovementAdvisoryCommittee(CIAC)isrequiredtoreviewtheLandUseAssumptions
andRoadImpactFeesCIPusedincalculatingthemaximumfee,andtoprovidetheCommittee’sfindingsfor
considerationbytheCityCouncil.TheCIACintheFebruary25,2016meetingvoted7-0toaccepttheLand
Use Assumptions and Capital Improvements Plan as attached in the CIAC findings Exhibit 4.
RECOMMENDATION
StaffrecommendsapprovaloftheLandUseAssumptionsandCapitalImprovementsPlanforthe
implementation of Road Impact Fees.
PRIOR ACTION/REVIEW (Council, Boards, Commissions)
December 5, 2011: Staff presentation to the City Council regarding supplemental street funding
February 6, 2012: Staff presentation to the City Council to provide an update regarding supplemental street funding
September10,2013:StaffpresentationtotheCityCounciltoprovideanupdateandseekdirectionregarding
supplemental street funding
November 15, 2013: Staff presentation of proposed road impact fees to the Developer’s Committee
December10,2013:WorkSessiononKimley-HornandAssociates,Incconsultantcontractforimplementationofroad
impact fees
January7,2014:ApprovaloftheKimley-HornandAssociates,Incconsultantcontractforimplementationofroadimpact
fees
May-,2014:ApprovaloftheamendmenttotheKimley-HornandAssociates,Incconsultantcontractforimplementation
of road impact fees
December9,2014:PresentationoftheTravelDemandModelandproposedchangestotheMobilityPlantotheMobility
Committee
January5,2015:PresentationoftheTravelDemandModelandproposedchangestotheMobilityPlantotheTraffic
Safety Commission
January13,2015:UpdatetoMobilityCommitteeontheproposedchangestotheMobilityPlanandstreetsections
conforming to context sensitive solution design
March23,2015:PresentationoftheTravelDemandModelandproposedchangestotheMobilityPlantotheCity
Council
April 14, 2015: Presentation of the 10-Year Land Use Projections and Capital Improvements Plan to the City Council
May 12, 2015: Presentation on Road Impact Fee calculations, and comparison with other cities
July 28, 2015: Updated on Road Impact Fees to the City Council
September16,2015:UpdateontheimplementationoftheTravelDemandModeloftheDentonroadwaysystemandthe
resulting proposed updates to the current Mobility Plan to the Planning and Zoning Commission
September 21, 2015: Update on Road Impact Fees to the Mobility Committee
October 29, 2015: Presentation of Road Impact Fees to the Denton County Developers Alliance
November 11, 2015: Update on Denton Mobility Plan to the Planning and Zoning Commission
November18,2015:PublichearingbythePlanningandZoningCommissiontomakearecommendationtotheCity
Council regarding approval of an update to the City of Denton’s Mobility Plan
December 1, 2015: Update on Road Impact Fees to the City Council
City of DentonPage 3 of 4Printed on 3/17/2016
powered by Legistar™
File #:ID 16-403,Version:1
January 5, 2016: Public hearing by the City Council for approval of an update to the City of Denton’s Mobility Plan
January13,2016:Presentationonthe10-yearLandUseAssumptionsfortheimplementationofRoadImpactFeestothe
Capital Improvements Advisory Committee
February4,2016:Presentationonthe10-yearLandUseAssumptionsandtheCapitalImprovementsPlanforthe
implementation of Road Impact Fees to the Capital Improvements Advisory Committee
February25,2016:PresentationontheRoadImpactFeeCalculationsandimpactfeerecommendationsforthe
implementation of Road Impact Fees to the Capital Improvements Advisory Committee
EXHIBITS
1. Road Impact Fee Service Area Map
2. KHA DRAFT Report on Land Use Assumptions
3. KHA DRAFT Report on Capital Improvements Plan
4. CIAC Findings on LUA and CIP
5. Ordinance
Respectfully submitted:
P. S. Arora, P.E.
Division Manager
Wastewater Administration
City of DentonPage 4 of 4Printed on 3/17/2016
powered by Legistar™
Exhibit 1
ImpactFeeServiceAreaMap
Exhibit 2
II. LAND USE ASSUMPTIONS
A. Purpose and Overview
In order to assess an impact fee, Land Use Assumptions must be developed to provide the
basis for population and employment growth projections within a political subdivision. As
defined by Chapter 395 of the Texas Local Government Code, these assumptions include a
description of changes in land uses, densities, and population in the service area. The land
use assumptions are then used in determining the need and timing of transportation
improvements to serve future development.
Information from the following sources was compiled to complete the land use assumptions:
Denton Plan 2030 (City of Denton Comprehensive Plan)
Denton County Appraisal District (DCAD)
North Central Texas Council of Governments (NCTCOG)
City of Denton staff
The Land Use Assumptions include the following components:
Land Use Assumptions Methodology An overview of the general methodology used
to generate the land use assumptions.
Roadway Impact Fee Service Areas Explanation of the division of Denton into service
areas for transportation facilities.
Residential and Employment Data on residential and employment growth within the
service area over the next ten years (2015 2025).
Land Use Assumptions Summary A synopsis of the land use assumptions.
The population and employment estimates and projections were compiled in accordance with
the following categories:
Units: Number of dwelling units, both single and multi-family.
Population: Number of people, based on persons per dwelling unit.
2015 Roadway Impact Fee Study January 2016
3
City of Denton, Texas
Employment: Square feet of building area based on three (3) different classifications. Each
classification has unique trip making characteristics.
Retail: Land use activities which provide for the retail sale of goods which
primarily serve households and whose location choice is oriented toward the
household sector, such as grocery stores and restaurants.
Service: Land use activities which provide personal and professional services,
such as government and other professional offices.
Basic: Land use activities that produce goods and services such as those which
are exported outside of the local economy, such as manufacturing,
construction, transportation, wholesale, trade, warehousing, and other
industrial uses.
The above categories in the Land Use Assumptions match those used to develop the travel
demand model for the City of Denton. These broader categories are used in the
development of the assumptions for impact fees; however, expanded classifications used in
the assessment of impact fees are found in the Land Use / Vehicle-Mile Equivalency Table
(Pg. 46).
B. Land Use Assumptions Methodology
The residential and non-residential growth projections formulated in this report were
performed using reasonable and generally accepted planning principles. The following
factors were considered in developing these projections:
Character, type, density, and quantity of existing development;
Current zoning plans;
Future Land Use Plan (based on Denton Plan 2030);
Growth trends;
Location of vacant land;
Physical restrictions (i.e. flood plains, railroads); and
Physical development capacity of Denton.
2015 Roadway Impact Fee Study January 2016
4
City of Denton, Texas
Existing residential and employment estimates were obtained using Denton Central Appraisal
District (DCAD) parcel data and an aerial survey of existing development. Building data
from the Texas Higher Education Coordination Board were also obtained to accurately
reflect existing development within The
University campuses, as these are tax-exempt institutions for which no information was
available in the DCAD parcel data.
For the remaining undeveloped areas, assumptions based upon the Future Land Use
Plan were used to estimate the ultimate buildout of residential and employment development.
To project future development in the ten year window, the known developing areas within the
city were assumed to be fully developed by the year 2025.
Research of historical building permits was performed to compare the projected growth of
these known developments with previous growth trends in the City of Denton over the last ten
years. During the last ten years, approximately 9,516 residential units and 12 million square
feet of employment were developed. It is projected that the next ten years of development
would be reasonably close to these estimates.
C. Roadway Impact Fee Service Areas
The geographic boundary of the proposed impact fee service areas for transportation
facilities is shown in Exhibit 1. The City of Denton is currently divided into five (5) service
areas, each based upon the six (6) mile limit, as required in Chapter 395 (explained on
Pg. 20). For roadway facilities, the service areas as required by state law are limited to
areas within the current corporate limits. Therefore, areas within the extraterritorial
jurisdiction (ETJ) and non-annexation areas (NAAs) are excluded from this study.
It should be noted that at locations where service area boundaries follow a City thoroughfare
facility, the proposed boundary is intended to follow the centerline of the roadway, unless
otherwise noted. In cases where a service area boundary follows the City Limits, only those
portions of the transportation facility within the City Limits are included in the service area.
2015 Roadway Impact Fee Study January 2016
5
City of Denton, Texas
I-35
§
¨¦
288
§
¨¦
D
C
E
I-35E
A
§
¨¦
I-35W
§
¨¦
B
Legend
Streets
Freeway/Highway
Crawford
Principle Arterial
Other Roadways
Railroad
Non-Annexation Areas
ETJ
Service Areas
Exhibit 1. Proposed Service Areas
A
2015 Roadway Impact Fee Study
B
00.5123
Miles
C
1 in = 2 miles
D
E
January 2016
D. Residential and Employment
Residential and Employment estimates for the base year (2015) were performed based upon
a survey of the existing land uses on DCAD parcel data, aerial verification, and college
campus building data. Build-out projections were prepared by combining the existing land
uses within the service area with reasonable density assumptions for undeveloped land based
upon the Denton Plan 2030 - Future Land Use Plan. Ten year growth projections were
prepared based upon historic growth trends, location of recent and known development
within the City, and consultation with City staff. Exhibit 2 presents the existing City limits and
the proposed service areas, combined with the Future Land Use Plan.
E. Land Use Assumptions Summary
Table 1 summarizes the residential and employment 10-year growth projections. The
projected growth over the next ten years is reasonable compared to the historical growth
over the previous ten years, as described in the Land Use Assumptions Methodology
(page 4).
Table 1. Residential and Employment 10-Year Projections
Residential Employment
Single
Multi-Family Basic Service Retail
Service
Family
Area
Dwelling Units Sq. Ft. Sq. Ft. Sq. Ft.
A 3,713 1,890 3,685,975 960,894 681,432
B 909 211 618,915 32,021 419,263
C 1,033 832 680,537 1,222,722 2,530,669
D 702 187 850,814 193,124 466,617
E 390 1,099 732,932 1,014,708 897,984
Sub-Total 6,748 4,219 6,569,173 3,423,469 4,995,965
Total 10,966 14,988,607
2015 Roadway Impact Fee Study January 2016
7
City of Denton, Texas
I-35
§
¨¦
288
§
¨¦
I-35E
§
¨¦
I-35W
§
¨¦
Crawford
Legend
Residential - Low Density
Denton Future Land Use PlanStreets
Residential - Moderate Density
Business InnovationFreeway/Highway
Exhibit 2. Future Land Use Plan
Neighborhood Mixed Use
CommercialPrinciple Arterial
2015 Roadway Impact Fee Study
Parks / Open Space
Community Mixed UseOther Roadways
00.5123
Regional Mixed Use
Miles
Downtown DentonRailroad
1 in = 2 miles
Rural Areas
Downtown Compatibility Area
Neighborhood/University Compatibility Area
Government/Institutional
Industrial Commerce
January 2016
Exhibit 3
III. ROADWAY IMPACT FEE CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PLAN
Development of a 10-year Roadway Impact Fee Capital Improvement Plan is required per
Chapter 395 of the Texas local Government Code. To accomplish this, the current Denton
Mobility Plan has been updated using a Denton-specific Travel Demand Model. The Travel
Demand Model was developed using the existing roadway network and residential and
employment data to develop a baseline scenario. This scenario was calibrated using existing
vehicle counts. Several build-out scenarios were run using the build-out residential and
employment data to assist in completing the updated mobility plan map. This updated
mobility plan map serves as the basis for this Roadway Impact Fee CIP. The Roadway
Impact Fee CIP includes arterial and collector class roadway facilities that serve the overall
transportation system, as well as major intersection improvements. All of the facilities
identified are included in the proposed mobility plan map.
The proposed Roadway Impact Fee CIP is listed in Tables 2.A 2.E and mapped in Exhibits
3.A 3.E. The tables shMobility Plan
classification. The Roadway Impact Fee CIP was developed in conjunction with input from
City of Denton staff and represents those projects that will be needed to accommodate the
growth projected in the Land Use Assumptions section of this report.
2015 Roadway Impact Fee Study January 2016
9
City of Denton, Texas
Table 2.A. 10-Year Roadway Impact Fee Capital Improvements Plan Service Area A
% In
Service Length
Proj. #IF ClassRoadwayLimitsService
Area(mi)
Area
A-1SAJim Christal (1)0.2850%
490' E of C. Wolfe to Thomas J. Egan
A-2, C-21SAJim Christal (2)0.7550%
225' E of Future Loop to Masch Branch
A-3, C-22PAJim Christal (3)1.2350%
Masch Branch to Scripture
A-4PAJim Christal (4)0.60100%
Scripture to I-35 SBFR
A-5PAAirport1.75100%
Masch Branch to I-35W SBFR
A-6SAAmyx2.60100%
C. Wolfe to FM 2499
A-7SAShelby0.61100%
Westcourt/Underwood to Corbin
A-8SACole Ranch E-W SA #10.87100%
Cole Ranch N-S SA to Future Loop
A-9SAFM 2499 (1)1.07100%
C. Wolfe to 345' E of Cole Ranch-Hunter Ranch Arterial
A-10SAFM 2499 (2)1.27100%
345' E of Cole Ranch-Hunter Ranch Arterial to Underwood
A-11SACole Ranch E-W SA #21.06100%
Cole Ranch N-S SA to Cole Ranch-Hunter Ranch Arterial
A-12SAH. Lively (1)0.74100%
725' E of Seabron to 1,975' W of C. Wolfe
A-13SAH. Lively (2)0.3750%
1,975' W of C. Wolfe to C. Wolfe
A-14SAH. Lively (3)2.40100%
C. Wolfe to John Paine/Underwood (2)
A-15SAHunter Ranch Arterial2.22100%
Hunter Ranch N-S Col #1 to Brush Creek
A-16PABrush Creek (1)2.71100%
Hunter Ranch N-S Col #2 to I-35W
A-17SAEd Robson0.62100%
FM 2449 to H. Lively
A-18CC. Wolfe1.5850%
Tom Cole to FM 2449
A-19SAH. Lively (4)0.6350%
FM 2499 to H. Lively
A-20SACole Ranch N-S SA2.39100%
Tom Cole to H. Lively
A-21PACole Ranch-Hunter Ranch Arterial3.43100%
Amyx to Hunter Ranch Arterial
A-22PAFuture Loop (2)0.94100%
Jim Christal to 4,965' S of Jim Christal
A-23PAFuture Loop (3)1.78100%
260' N of Tom Cole to FM 2449
A-24PAFuture Loop (4)0.5750%
1,040' W of Amyx to Underwood
A-25PAFuture Loop (5)0.73100%
Underwood to I-35W SBFR
A-26CJim Christal-Tom Cole Collector0.76100%
Jim Christal to Tom Cole
A-27SA (1/2)Westcourt0.79100%
Airport to Springside
A-28SAWestcourt/Underwood0.32100%
Springside to 1,700' S of Springside
A-29SAUnderwood (1)0.2950%
1,700' S of Springside to 2,655' N of FM 2449
A-30SAUnderwood (2)0.50100%
2,655' N of FM 2449 to FM 2449
A-31SAJohn Paine/Underwood (1)0.7250%
FM 2449 to 1,265' N of H. Lively
A-32SAJohn Paine/Underwood (2)0.62100%
1,265' N of H. Lively to 970' N of Brush Creek
A-33SAJohn Paine/Underwood (3)0.18100%
970' N of Brush Creek to Brush Creek
A-34PA (2/3)Western1.23100%
Jim Christal to Airport
A-35CPrecision (1)0.42100%
Jim Christal to 1,775' N of Airport
A-36CPrecision (2)0.34100%
1,775' N of Airport to Airport
Note: The 10-Year Roadway Impact Fee CIP is not in a prioritized order.
2015 Roadway Impact Fee Study January 2016
10
City of Denton, Texas
Table 2.B. 10-Year Roadway Impact Fee Capital Improvements Plan Service Area B
% In
Service Length
Proj. #IF ClassRoadwayLimitsService
Area(mi)
Area
B-1CParvin0.51100%
Highland Park to McCormick
B-2SAHobson1.14100%
Country Club to Teasley
B-3PAVintage0.96100%
490' W of Bonnie Brae to Fort Worth (US 377)
B-4CEl Paseo0.36100%
Country Club to Belmont
B-5SARyan2.06100%
Country Club to Teasley
B-6SA (1/2)Robinson (1)0.52100%
Teasley to 220' E of Wheeler Ridge
B-7SA (1/2)Robinson (2)0.13100%
175' E of Berkley to 315' E of State School Rd
B-8C (1/3)Creekdale (1)0.13100%
Ryan to 660' S. of Ryan
B-9CCreekdale (2)0.42100%
660' S. of Ryan to Thistle Way
B-10C (1/3)Creekdale (3)0.1250%
Thistle Way to Riverpass
B-11CCreekdale (4)0.60100%
210' E of Riverchase Trail to 280' W of Pimlico
B-12PABrush Creek (2)0.37100%
I-35W NBFR to John Paine (Future)
B-13PABrush Creek (3)0.38100%
John Paine (Future) to 2,010' E of John Paine (Future)
B-14PABrush Creek (4)0.14100%
225' W. of Fort Worth to 500' E. of Fort Worth
B-15PABrush Creek (5)0.3250%
500' E. of Fort Worth to 2,180' East of Fort Worth
B-16PAHickory Creek (1)0.37100%
Country Club to 1,955' E. of Country Club
B-17PAHickory Creek (2)0.4350%
Riverpass to Montecito
B-18PAHickory Creek (3)0.85100%
Montecito to Teasley
B-19PA (1/3)Hickory Creek (4)0.25100%
Teasley to Nautical
B-20PA (2/3)Hickory Creek (5)0.13100%
Nautical to Erin
B-21PAHickory Creek (6)0.09100%
Erin to State School Road (Future)
B-22CJohn Paine-Fort Worth Collector0.41100%
#REF!
B-23CJohn Paine (1)1.41100%
Vintage to Brush Creek
B-24CJohn Paine (2)0.5050%
Brush Creek to Johnson
B-25CJohn Paine (3)0.39100%
Johnson to 135' N of Athens
B-26SABonnie Brae (4)2.45100%
I-35E SBFR to Vintage
B-27SABonnie Brae (5)1.07100%
Vintage to Fort Worth (US 377)
B-28CHighland Park0.78100%
130' S of Willowcrest to Roselawn
B-29PAFort Worth (US 377)5.13100%
I-35E to S City Limits
B-30SAFM 18302.14100%
Fort Worth (US 377) to Brush Creek
B-31CRyan-Creekdale Collector0.48100%
Ryan to Creekdale
B-32PATeasley3.39100%
Sundown to S City Limits
Note: The 10-Year Roadway Impact Fee CIP is not in a prioritized order.
2015 Roadway Impact Fee Study January 2016
11
City of Denton, Texas
Table 2.C. 10-Year Roadway Impact Fee Capital Improvements Plan Service Area C
% In
Service Length
Proj. #IF ClassRoadwayLimitsService
Area(mi)
Area
C-1SAMilam (1)0.09100%
I-35 SBFR to 175' E of I-35 NBFR
C-2SAMilam (2)2.2850%
175' E of I-35 NBFR to FM 2164 (Locust)
C-3CBobcat0.41100%
1,105' W of Milam Ridge to HOD N-S Secondary Arterial
C-4PAGanzer0.6350%
230' W. of Rector to Future Cindy
C-5PAGanzer/Long (1)0.22100%
625' W of I-35 SBFR to 350' E of I-35 NBFR
C-6SAGanzer/Long (2)2.15100%
Ganzer to FM 2164 (Locust)
C-7CBarthold-Cindy Collector0.21100%
Barthold to 1,135' W of Cindy (Future)
C-8CMasch Branch-I-35 Collector0.25100%
1,295' W of I-35 to I-35
C-9SAHOD E-W Secondary Arterial (1)0.16100%
HOD N-S Secondary Arterial to 840' E of HOD N-S
C-10SAHOD E-W Secondary Arterial (2)0.4450%
840' E of HOD N-S Secondary Arterial to 130' E of Bonnie
C-11SAHOD E-W Secondary Arterial (3)2.86100%
130' E of Bonnie Brae (Existing) to FM 2164 (Locust)
C-12PAHWY 1173 (1)0.5250%
460' E of Masch Branch (Existing) to 375' E of Barthold
C-13PAHWY 1173 (2)0.60100%
Cindy to I-35 SBFR
C-14PA (1/3)Elm (US 377)3.01100%
I-35 NBFR to Elm/Locust Couplet
C-15CHercules0.41100%
115' E of Northpointe to Locust
C-16SAWestgate (E-W)0.56100%
Westgate (N-S) to Bonnie Brae
C-17CRiney (1)0.34100%
Bonnie Brae to 990' W of Elm
C-18CRiney (2)0.19100%
990' W of Elm to Elm
C-19SAMasch Branch-I-35 Secondary Arterial1.34100%
Masch Branch to I-35 SBFR
C-20SAJim Christal (1)0.7950%
490' E of C. Wolfe to Thomas J. Egan
A-2, C-21SAJim Christal (2)0.7550%
225' E of Future Loop to Masch Branch
A-3, C-22PAJim Christal (3)1.2350%
Masch Branch to Scripture
C-23SANail (1)0.4250%
University to 2,240' S of University
C-24SANail (2)0.47100%
2,240 S of University to Jim Christal
C-25CThomas J Egan (1)0.21100%
555' N. of University to 550' S of University
C-26CThomas J Egan (2)0.6650%
550' S of University to Jim Christal
C-27PAFuture Loop (1)0.56100%
University to 745' N of Jim Christal
C-28PAMasch Branch (1)0.7950%
1,290' S of HWY 1173 to Miller
C-29PAMasch Branch (2)0.59100%
895' W of Future Loop to 1,255' N of University
C-30PAMasch Branch (3)1.02100%
1,255' N of University to Jim Christal
C-31SALover's Lane (1)0.2750%
HWY 1173 to 325' N of Fruth
C-32SALover's Lane (2)0.17100%
325' N of Fruth to 340' N of Littlebrook
C-33SALover's Lane (3)0.1050%
340' N of Littlebrook to Hook
C-34SALover's Lane (4)0.71100%
Hook to Masch Branch-I-35 SA
C-35SABarthold0.5850%
Ganzer to City Limits
C-36SACindy (1)0.2450%
Ganzer to 1,280' S of Ganzer
C-37SACindy (2)0.41100%
1,280' S of Ganzer to Masch Branch-I-35 Collector
C-38SACindy (3)0.42100%
FM 1173 (Future) to 150' S of Future Loop
C-39SACindy (4)0.82100%
1,050' N of Masch Branch-I-35 PA to Tieszen
C-40SACindy (5)0.36100%
Tieszen to University
C-41PA (2/3)Western (1)0.80100%
University to Jim Christal
C-42CMilam-Bobcat Col0.57100%
Milam to Bobcat (Future)
C-43SAHOD N-S Secondary Arterial (1)0.58100%
Milam to 220' S of Bobcat
C-44SAHOD N-S Secondary Arterial (2)0.54100%
2830' N of Elm to Elm
C-45SAHeritage Trail0.77100%
University to Scripture
C-46PABonnie Brae (1)3.17100%
Milam to Loop 288 EBFR
C-47SABonnie Brae (2)0.43100%
Loop 288 EBFR to 860' N of Riney
C-48,E-14SABonnie Brae (3)1.4150%
University to I-35
C-49CFallmeadow0.19100%
140' S of Meadow Edge to Gardenview
C-50,D-45PAFM 2164 (Locust) (1)2.7050%
City Limits to Loop 288 WBFR
C-51,D-46PAFM 2164 (Locust) (2)1.4150%
Loop 288 WBFR to Elm
Notes: The 10-Year Roadway Impact Fee CIP is not in a prioritized order; HOD: Hills of Denton.
2015 Roadway Impact Fee Study January 2016
12
City of Denton, Texas
Table 2.D. 10-Year Roadway Impact Fee Capital Improvements Plan Service Area D
% In
Service Length
Proj. #IF ClassRoadwayLimitsService
Area(mi)
Area
D-1CFM 2164-Brittany Hill Collector (1)0.57100%
1,605' E of FM 2164 to 745' W of Mesquite Ridge
D-2CFM 2164-Brittany Hill Collector (2)0.1450%
745' W of Mesquite Ridge to Mesquite Ridge
D-3CFM 2164-Brittany Hill Collector (3)0.49100%
Mesquite Ridge to Brittany Hill
D-4SAFM 2153 (Realigned)2.03100%
City Limits to 620' S of Somerset
D-5PAFM 2164-FM 2153 (Realigned) PA0.73100%
FM 2164 (Locust) to Indian Wells (Future)
D-6PAFM 2164-FM 2153 (Realigned) PA1.79100%
Mesquite Ridge (Future) to FM 2153 (Realigned)
D-7SAFM 2164-FM 2153 SA (1)0.93100%
FM 2164 (Locust) to Indian Wells (Future)
D-8SAFM 2164-FM 2153 SA (2)0.90100%
540' E of Green Valley (Future) to FM 2153
D-9SAShepard0.28100%
1,490' W of FM 2153 to FM 2153
D-10CGribble Springs-Chapman Collector 630' N of FM 2164-Brittany Hill Collector to Gribble Springs 1.69100%
FM 2164-Brittany Hill Collector to
D-11CMesquite Ridge (1)0.52100%
400 N' of FM 2164-FM 2153 (Realigned) PA
400' N of FM 2164-FM 2153 (Realigned) PA to
D-12CMesquite Ridge (2)0.1650%
470' S of FM 2164-FM 2153 (Realigned) PA
470' S of FM 2164-FM 2153 (Realigned) PA to
D-13CMesquite Ridge (3)0.10100%
1,005' S of FM 2164-FM 2153 (Realigned) PA
355' S of Covey to
D-14SABrittany Hill (1)0.78100%
795' S of FM 2164-FM 2153 (Realigned) PA
795' S of FM 2164-FM 2153 (Realigned) PA to
D-15SABrittany Hill (2)0.2050%
770' N of FM 2164-FM 2153 SA
D-16CFM 2153 (1)1.44100%
City Limits to Burger (S)
D-17CFM 2153 (2)0.27100%
Burger to FM 2153 (Realigned)
D-18CFM 2153 (Realigned)-FM 2153 Collector0.79100%
FM 2153 (Realigned) to FM 2153
D-19SAFM 2153 (3)1.1450%
620' S of Somerset to Sherman
D-20SAGreen Valley (1)0.16100%
Warschun to 860' S of Warschun
D-21SAGreen Valley (2)0.23100%
860' S of Warschun to Sherman
D-22SAMilam (3)0.11100%
FM 2164 (Locust) to 605' E of FM 2164 (Locust)
D-23SABobcat (3)0.09100%
FM 2164 (Locust) to 515' E of FM 2164 (Locust)
D-24SACooper Creek (1)2.13100%
860' W of Hartlee-Cooper Collector #1 to Hartlee Field
D-25SACooper Creek (2)0.6650%
Silver Dome to Fishtrap
D-26SACooper Creek (3)0.50100%
Fishtrap to University
D-27CGolden Circle1.78100%
Hartlee Field (Future) to Hartlee Field (Existing)
D-28SAHartlee Field (1)0.09100%
FM 2164 (Locust) to 500' E of FM 2164 (Locust)
D-29SAHartlee Field (2)1.10100%
West City Limits to Woodland Hill
D-30CLong (1)0.10100%
FM 2164 (Locust) to 525' E of FM 2164
D-31CLong (2)0.34100%
City Limits to Stuart
D-32CHartlee Field (3)0.43100%
Sherman to 515' E. of Sherman
D-33CKings-Windsor Collector0.09100%
Kings Row to Windsor
D-34CWindsor1.02100%
410' E of Saints to Cooper Creek
D-35SAMingo (2)0.95100%
University to 455' E. of Cooper Creek
D-36PAPost Oak (1)0.86100%
N. City Limits to Cooper Creek (Future)
D-37PAPost Oak/Cooper Creek0.40100%
Cooper Creek (Future) to Hartlee Field
D-38PAPost Oak (2)0.33100%
Railroad to Fishtrap
D-39PAPost Oak (3)0.1850%
Fishtrap to 940' S of Fishtrap
D-40PAPost Oak (4)0.07100%
940' S of Fishtrap to University
D-41CDeerwood0.41100%
2,855' N of Kings Row to 680' N of Kings Row
D-42CHartlee-Cooper Col0.82100%
Hartlee Field to Cooper Creek
D-43PASherman (1)2.30100%
Locust to Loop 288 WBFR
D-44PASherman (2)4.65100%
Loop 288 WBFR to City Limits
C-50,D-45PAFM 2164 (Locust) (1)2.7050%
City Limits to Loop 288 WBFR
C-51,D-46PAFM 2164 (Locust) (2)1.4150%
Loop 288 WBFR to Elm
Note: The 10-Year Roadway Impact Fee CIP is not in a prioritized order.
2015 Roadway Impact Fee Study January 2016
13
City of Denton, Texas
Table 2.E. 10-Year Roadway Impact Fee Capital Improvements Plan Service Area E
% In
Service Length
Proj. #IF ClassRoadwayLimitsService
Area(mi)
Area
E-1SAMingo (1)2.06100%
435' NE of Bell to University
E-2CLattimore0.09100%
Ruddell to 475' E of Ruddell
E-3CAudra0.27100%
Bayfield to Loop 288
E-4CBlagg1.28100%
Mayhill to Lakeview
E-5SAMcKinney (FM 426)3.95100%
Woodrow to East City Limits
E-6CDuchess (1)0.75100%
Woodrow to 115' W of Trailhead
E-7C (1/2)Duchess (2)0.38100%
115' W of Trailhead to 1,000' W of Loop 288
E-8CMorse (1)0.25100%
Woodrow to Shady Oaks
E-9SA (1/2)Morse (2)0.51100%
Kimberly to Mayhill
E-10SASpencer0.34100%
485' E of Loop 288 to Mayhill
E-11CLakeview (1)0.19100%
Post Oak (Future) to 1025' E of Post Oak (Future)
E-12CLakeview (2)0.36100%
2,745' E of Post Oak (Future) to Bishop Pine
E-13CEdwards 1.02100%
560' E of Mayhill to Swisher
C-48,E-14SABonnie Brae (3)1.4150%
University to I-35E NBFR
E-15CRuddell0.11100%
Mingo to Willis
E-16CMockingbird0.16100%
McKinney to 850' S of McKinney
E-17SABrinker0.53100%
Shady Oaks to Spencer
E-18SAMayhill (1)3.81100%
University to Colorado
E-19PA (1/3)Mayhill (2) Colorado to I-35E NBFR 0.45100%
E-20PAPost Oak (5) University to 1,010' N of Blagg 0.33100%
E-21PAPost Oak (6) 1,010' N of Blagg to 1,650' S of Blagg 0.5050%
E-22PAPost Oak (7) 1,490' N of Mills to 2,400' N of McKinney 0.79100%
E-23PAPost Oak (8) 1,230' N of McKinney to Pockrus Page 2.48100%
E-24PAPost Oak (9) Pockrus Page to Lakeview 0.27100%
E-25CLakeview (3) 130' S of Rodeo to 735' S of Mills 0.37100%
E-26CTrinity-McKinney Connector (1) Trinity to 1290' N of McKinney 1.27100%
E-27SATrinity-McKinney Connector (2) 1290' N of McKinney to McKinney 0.24100%
Note: The 10-Year Roadway Impact Fee CIP is not in a prioritized order.
2015 Roadway Impact Fee Study January 2016
14
City of Denton, Texas
saxeT htroN
saxeT htroN
rotceR
I
D-18
!
(
D
D-1
!(
D-2
!(
D-16
D-3
!
(
!(
D-4
D-6
!(
!(
D-14
D-10
D-5D-11
!
(
!
!((
D-17
!
(
!
(
D-12
!
(
D-13
D-7
D-15
!(
!
(
D-8
!
(
!(
D-19
D-9
!
(
!(
D-22
!
(
D-20
!
(
D-23D-44
!!
((
D-21
!
(
D-45
C-50
!
(
!
(
D-24
!
(
D-27
D-28
!
(
!
(
D-36
D-24
!
(
!
(
C-11
!
(
D-29
D-30
D-42
!
(
!
(
!
(
D-37
!
(
D-31
!
(
D-32
288
!
(
§
¨¦
D-41
!
(
C-15
!
(
D-46
C-51
D-33
!
(
!
(
C-49
!
(
!
(
D-43
D-25
!
(
!
(
D-34
C-14
!
(
D-38
!
(
!
(
D-39
D-35
!
(
!D-26
(
D-40
!
(
!
(
E-20
!
(
E-4
!
(
E-3
E-1
!
!(
(
E-21
Lattimore
!
(
Exhibit 3.D - Service Area D CIP
Legend
E-2
!
(
E-18
E-15
2015 Roadway Impact Fee Study
!
(
!
(
Project LimitsFlood Plain
See Table 2.D, Page 13
CIP ProjectsStreams
00.51
Miles
E-5
E-25
!
(
RailroadsNon-Annexation Areas
1 in = 1 miles
!
(
Other ThoroughfaresETJ
E-16
E-22
!
(
!
(
Streets
E-6
January 2016
!(
E-7
E-9
!(
!
(
E-26
E-5
!
(
!
(
dribgnikcoM
saxeT htroN
IV. COMPUTATION METHOD FOR ROADWAY IMPACT FEES
A. Service Areas
The five (5) service areas used in the 2015 Roadway Impact Fee Study are shown in
Exhibit 1. These service areas cover the entire corporate area of the City of Denton.
Chapter 395 of the Texas Local Gov
to an area within the corporate boundaries of the political subdivision and shall not exceed
B. Service Units
ities by new
development. In other words, it is the unit of measure used in the 2015 Roadway Impact Fee
Study to quantify the supply and demand for roads in the City. For transportation purposes,
the service unit is defined as a vehicle-mile. Below is the definition for vehicle-mile.
Vehicle-Mile: The capacity consumed in a single lane in the PM peak hour by a vehicle
making a trip one mile in length. The PM Peak is used as the basis for transportation
planning and the estimation of trips caused by new development.
Total Vehicle-Miles of Supply: Based on the total length (miles), number of lanes, and
capacity (vehicles per hour) provided by the Denton Mobility Plan (see Appendix B).
Total Vehicle-Miles of Demand: Based on the 10-year growth projections (Pg. Error!
Bookmark not defined.). The demand is equal to PM Trip Rate (trips) * Trip Length (miles).
The capacity values used in the 2015 Roadway Impact Fee Study are based upon
Thoroughfare Capacity Criteria published by the North Central Texas Council of
Governments (NCTCOG) and applied to City of Denton thoroughfare standards. Tables 3A
and 3B show the service volumes as a function of the facility classification and type.
2015 Roadway Impact Fee Study January 2016
20
City of Denton, Texas
Table 3A. Service Volumes for Proposed Facilities
(used in Appendix B Roadway Impact Fee CIP Service Units of Supply)
Hourly Vehicle-Mile
Facility Classification Median Configuration Capacity per Lane-Mile of
Roadway Facility
Primary Arterial (PA) Divided 850
Secondary Arterial (SA) Divided 750
Collector (C) Undivided 550
Table 3B. Service Volumes for Existing Facilities
(used in Appendix C Existing Roadway Facilities Inventory)
Hourly Vehicle-Mile
Roadway
Description Capacity per Lane-Mile of
Type
Roadway Facility
Rural Cross-Section
2U-R 150
(i.e., gravel, dirt, etc.)
2U-H Two lane undivided Arterial Type 725
2-1W Two lane one way couplet 650
2U Two lane undivided 425
3-1W Three lane - one way couplet 700
3U Three lane undivided (two-way, left-turn lane) 550
4U Four lane undivided 550
4D Four lane divided 750
6D Six lane divided 850
2015 Roadway Impact Fee Study January 2016
21
City of Denton, Texas
C. Cost Per Service Unit
A fundamental step in the impact fee process is to establish the cost for each service unit. In
the case of the Roadway Impact Fee, this is the cost for each vehicle-mile of travel. Thus, it is
the cost to construct a roadway (lane-mile) needed to accommodate a vehicle-mile of travel.
The cost per service unit is calculated for each service area based on the roadway projects
within that service area.
The second component of the cost per service unit is the determination of the number of
service units in each service area. This number is the measure of the growth in transportation
demand that is projected to occur in the ten-year period.
D. Roadway Impact Fee CIP Costing Methodology
All of the project costs for an arterial or collector facility which serves the overall
transportation system are eligible to be included in the Roadway Impact Fee Capital
Improvements Plan. Chapter 395 of the Texas Local Government Code specifies that the
1. Construction contract price;
2. Surveying and engineering fees;
3.
fees, and expert witness fees; and
4. Fees actually paid or contracted to be paid to an independent qualified engineer
or financial consultant preparing or updating the capital improvements plan who
the probable costs of the projects in the Roadway Impact Fee CIP is
based, in part, on the calculation of a unit cost of construction. This means that a cost per
linear foot of roadway is calculated based on an average price for the various components
of roadway construction. This allows the probable cost to be determined by the type of
facility being constructed, the number of lanes, and the length of the project. The cost for
location specific items such as bridges, highway ramps, drainage structures, and any other
2015 Roadway Impact Fee Study January 2016
22
City of Denton, Texas
special components are added to each project, as appropriate. The following is a detailed
description of the costing worksheet/methodology for the Roadway Impact Fee CIP.
1. Overview of Roadway Impact Fee CIP Costing Worksheets
For each project a specific costing worksheet was developed (see Appendix A). Each
worksheet contained the following four (4) main components:
Project Information,
Construction Pay Items,
Construction Component Allowances and
Summary of Costs and Allowances
City of Denton Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.
2015 Roadway Impact Fee Study updated:10/13/2015
Conceptual Level Project Cost Projection
Project Information:Description:Project No.B-24
Name:Bonnie Brae (5)This project consists of the reconstruction of the
Limits:Vintage to Fort Worth (US 377)existing pavement to a four lane divided concrete
Impact Fee Class:SA secondary arterial.
Project Information
Ultimate Class:Secondary Arterial
Length (lf):5,655
Service Area(s):B
Roadway Construction Cost Projection
No.Item DescriptionQuantityUnitUnit PriceItem Cost
107Unclassified Street Excavation19,478cy$ 9.25$ 180,175
20712" Lime Stabilization (with Lime @ 50#/sy)37,700sy$ 8.00$ 301,600
30611" Concrete Pavement and Curb35,187sy$ 54.00$ 1,900,080
Construction Pay Items
4075' Concrete Sidewalk56,550sy$ 4.50$ 254,475
507Turn Lanes and Median Openings2,533sy$ 62.00$ 157,044
Paving Construction Cost Subtotal:$ 2,793,374
Major Construction Component Allowances**:
Item DescriptionNotesAllowanceItem Cost
Traffic Control Construction Phase Traffic Control 5%$ 139,669
Pavement Markings/Signs/Posts Includes Striping/Signs for Bicycle Facilties 3%$ 83,801
Roadway Drainage Standard Internal System 30%$ 838,012
Illumination5%$ 139,669
Special Drainage Structures Drainage Crossing(s)N/A$ 800,000
Water Minor Adjustments 2%$ 55,867
Sewer Minor Adjustments 1%$ 27,934
Construction Component
Landscaping and Irrigation6%$ 167,602
Intersection Improvements None Anticipated-$ -
Allowances
Miscellaneous:$0$ -
**Allowances based on % of Paving Construction Cost Subtota l Allowance Subtotal:$ 2,252,554
Paving and Allowance Subtotal:$ 5,045,928
Construction Contingency:15%$ 756,889
Mobilization 5%$ 252,296
Prep ROW 3%$ 151,378
Construction Cost TOTAL:$ 6,207,000
Impact Fee Project Cost Summary
Item DescriptionNotes:AllowanceItem Cost
Construction: - $ 6,207,000
Summary of Costs
Engineering/Survey/Testing:16%$ 993,120
Inspection 3.5%$ 217,245
and Allowances
Other
ROW/Easement Acquisition:Existing Alignment 15%$ 931,050
Impact Fee Project Cost TOTAL:$ 8,348,000
2015 Roadway Impact Fee Study January 2016
23
City of Denton, Texas
2. Project Information
In order to correctly estimate the cost of a roadway project, several attributes are first
identified:
Project Number Identifies which Service Area the project is in with a corresponding
number. The corresponding number does not represent any prioritizations and is used
th
only to identify projects. For example, Project A-10 is in Service Area A and is the 10
project on the list.
Name A unique identifier for each project. In some cases abbreviations are used for
the project name. For example, a roadway within the Hills of Denton may be shown as
HOD. In cases where roadway names are unknown the connecting limits may be used
such as FM 2164 - FM 2153 SA represents a secondary arterial (SA) that connects FM
2164 to FM 2153.
Limits Represents the beginning and ending location for each project.
Impact Fee Class The costing class to be used in the analysis. The impact fee class
provides the width for the various elements in the roadway. The construction costs are
variable, based on the proposed Mobility Plan classification of the roadway. For
example, PA stands for Primary Arterial. A PA Impact Fee Class means the entire
roadway is to be constructed. Additional classifications are utilized in cases where a
portion of the facility currently exists and the road is only to be widened. The following
notations are used for these projects:
o
o -lane principal arterials facilities where two additional median
lanes are needed
o -lane principal arterials facilities where four additional lanes are
needed
Ultimate Class
Length (ft) The distance measured in feet that is used to cost out the project.
Service Area(s) Represents the service areas where the project is located. In some
cases the project is located either in the ETJ or NAA.
Description Used to describe the project type assumed in the costing such as a widening
or reconstruction.
2015 Roadway Impact Fee Study January 2016
24
City of Denton, Texas
3. Construction Pay Items
A typical roadway project consists of a number of costs, including the following: planning,
survey, design engineering, permitting, right-of way acquisition, and construction and
inspection. While the construction cost component of a project may actually consist of
approximately 100 various pay items, a simplified approach was used for developing the
conceptual level project costs. The pay items for both concrete and asphalt roads are shown
in Table 4.
Table 4. Construction Cost Pay Items
Concrete Pay Items Asphalt Pay Items
Unclassified street excavation Unclassified street excavation
Lime Stabilization Lime Stabilization
Concrete pavement and curb Type C asphalt top layer
Sidewalk Type B asphalt base layers
Turn lanes and median openings Sidewalk
Curb and gutter
Turn lanes and median openings
4. Construction Component Allowances
A percentage of the paving construction cost is allotted for various major construction
component allowances, as appropriate. These allowances include traffic control, pavement
markings and signage, roadway drainage, illumination, minor water and sewer adjustments,
landscaping and irrigation. These allowance percentages are also based on historical data.
In addition, lump sum dollar allowances are provided for special drainage structures,
railroad crossings, and intersection improvements where needs are anticipated. The paving
and allowance subtotal is given a fifteen percent (15%) contingency, five percent (5%)
mobilizations, and three (3%) preparation of right-of-way to determine the construction cost
total.
5. Summary of Cost and Allowances
To determine the total Impact Fee Project Cost, sixteen percent (16%) of the construction cost
total is added for engineering, surveying, and testing. In addition, three and a half percent
(3.5%) of the construction cost total is added for inspection for non-TxDOT projects.
2015 Roadway Impact Fee Study January 2016
25
City of Denton, Texas
Percentages are also allotted ROW/easement acquisition. ROW/easement acquisition was
based on whether the project was an existing alignment or future alignment. For an existing
alignment, the ROW/easement acquisition cost was provided an allotment equal to 15% of
the construction cost total. For a new alignment, the ROW/easement acquisition cost was
equal to 30% of the construction cost total. The value for ROW/easement acquisition is an
estimated contribution allocation and does not represent actual ROW/easement acquisition
needs. This allotment was based on an assumption of $2-$3 per square feet for ROW
acquisition. For TxDOT facilities assumed no ROW/easement acquisition was allotted.
Cash funds allocated from roadway escrow agreements have been subtracted from the
corresponding City projects.
The Impact Fee Project Cost Total is then the Construction Cost Total plus engineering,
surveying, testing, and inspection; plus ROW/easement acquisition; and minus roadway
escrow agreements. Based upon discussions with City of Denton staff, state highway projects
were included with a projected contribution of twenty percent (20%) of the total project.
E. Summary of Roadway Impact Fee CIP Costs
Tables 5.A 5.E are the 10-Year Roadway Impact Fee CIP project lists for each service
area with planning level project costs. Individual project cost worksheets can be seen in
Appendix A, Conceptual Level Project Cost Projections. It should be noted that these tables
reflect only conceptual-level opinions or assumptions regarding the portions of future project
costs that are recoverable through impact fees. Actual project costs are likely to change with
time and are dependent on market and economic conditions that cannot be predicted.
The Roadway Impact Fee CIP establishes the list of projects for which Impact Fees may be
utilized. Projects not included in the Roadway Impact Fee CIP are not eligible to receive
impact fee funding. The cost projections utilized in this study should not be utilized for the
2015 Roadway Impact Fee Study January 2016
26
City of Denton, Texas
Table 5.A 10-Year Roadway Impact Fee CIP
with Conceptual Level Cost Projections Service Area A
Service Cost in Service
Proj. #ClassRoadwayLimits
AreaArea
A-1SAJim Christal (1)490' E of C. Wolfe to Thomas J. Egan$ 2,085,000
A-2, C-21SAJim Christal (2) 225' E of Future Loop to Masch Branch $ 3,466,500
A-3, C-22PAJim Christal (3) Masch Branch to Scripture $ 7,196,500
A-4PAJim Christal (4) Scripture to I-35 SBFR $ 5,617,000
A-5PAAirportMasch Branch to I-35W SBFR$ 2,930,800
A-6SAAmyx C. Wolfe to FM 2499 $ 23,125,000
A-7SAShelby Westcourt/Underwood to Corbin $ 5,946,000
A-8SACole Ranch E-W SA #1 Cole Ranch N-S SA to Future Loop $ 6,928,000
A-9SAFM 2499 (1) C. Wolfe to 345' E of Cole Ranch-Hunter Ranch Arterial $ 1,357,600
A-10SAFM 2499 (2) 345' E of Cole Ranch-Hunter Ranch Arterial to Underwood (2) $ 1,467,200
A-11SACole Ranch E-W SA #2 Cole Ranch N-S SA to Cole Ranch-Hunter Ranch Arterial $ 7,337,000
A-12SAH. Lively (1) 725' E of Seabron to 1,975' W of C. Wolfe $ 4,864,000
A-13SAH. Lively (2) 1,975' W of C. Wolfe to C. Wolfe $ 1,434,000
A-14SAH. Lively (3) C. Wolfe to John Paine/Underwood (2) $ 17,294,000
A-15SAHunter Ranch Arterial Hunter Ranch N-S Col #1 to Brush Creek $ 17,438,000
A-16PABrush Creek (1) Hunter Ranch N-S Col #2 to I-35W $ 25,385,000
A-17SAEd Robson FM 2449 to H. Lively $ 4,762,000
A-18CC. Wolfe Tom Cole to FM 2449 $ 3,426,500
A-19SAH. Lively (4) FM 2499 to H. Lively $ 3,004,000
A-20SACole Ranch N-S SA Tom Cole to H. Lively $ 17,500,000
A-21PACole Ranch-Hunter Ranch Arterial Amyx to Hunter Ranch Arterial $ 32,915,000
A-22PAFuture Loop (2) Jim Christal to 4,965' S of Jim Christal $ 1,345,800
A-23PAFuture Loop (3) 260' N of Tom Cole to FM 2449 $ 3,151,400
A-24PAFuture Loop (4) 1,040' W of Amyx to Underwood $ 463,100
A-25PAFuture Loop (5) Underwood to I-35W SBFR $ 1,101,400
A-26CJim Christal-Tom Cole Collector Jim Christal to Tom Cole $ 4,075,000
A-27SA (1/2)Westcourt Airport to Springside $ 2,964,000
A-28SAWestcourt/Underwood Springside to 1,700' S of Springside $ 2,234,000
A-29SAUnderwood (1) 1,700' S of Springside to 2,655' N of FM 2449 $ 1,677,000
A-30SAUnderwood (2) 2,655' N of FM 2449 to FM 2449 $ 4,303,000
A-31SAJohn Paine/Underwood (1) FM 2449 to 1,265' N of H. Lively $ 2,366,500
A-32SAJohn Paine/Underwood (2) 1,265' N of H. Lively to 970' N of Brush Creek $ 4,646,000
A-33SAJohn Paine/Underwood (3) 970' N of Brush Creek to Brush Creek $ 1,275,000
A-34PA (2/3)Western Jim Christal to Airport $ 7,201,000
A-35CPrecision (1) Jim Christal to 1,775' N of Airport $ 1,816,000
A-36CPrecision (2) 1,775' N of Airport to Airport $ 1,375,000
Service Area Project Cost Subtotal$ 235,473,300
2015 Roadway Impact Fee Study Cost Per Service Area$ 55,300
Total Cost in SERVICE AREA A$ 235,528,600
a. These planning level cost projections have been developed for Impact Fee calculations only and should not be used for any future
Capital Improvement Projects within the City of Denton.
b. These planni
specific project.
2015 Roadway Impact Fee Study January 2016
27
City of Denton, Texas
Table 5.B 10-Year 10-Year Roadway Impact Fee CIP
with Conceptual Level Cost Projections Service Area B
Service Cost in Service
Proj. #ClassRoadwayLimits
AreaArea
B-1CParvin Highland Park to McCormick $ 2,456,000
B-2SAHobson Country Club to Teasley $ 9,163,000
B-3PAVintage 490' W of Bonnie Brae to Fort Worth (US 377) $ 4,187,189
B-4CEl PaseoCountry Club to Belmont$ 2,305,000
B-5SARyan Country Club to Teasley $ 16,369,000
B-6SA (1/2)Robinson (1) Teasley to 220' E of Wheeler Ridge $ 2,381,000
B-7SA (1/2)Robinson (2) 175' E of Berkley to 315' E of State School Rd $ 892,000
B-8C (1/3)Creekdale (1) Ryan to 660' S. of Ryan $ 194,000
B-9CCreekdale (2) 660' S. of Ryan to Thistle Way $ 3,452,000
B-10C (1/3)Creekdale (3) Thistle Way to Riverpass $ 182,000
B-11CCreekdale (4) 210' E of Riverchase Trail to 280' W of Pimlico $ 3,551,000
B-12PABrush Creek (2) I-35W NBFR to 2,010' E of John Paine (Future) $ 7,336,000
B-13PABrush Creek (3) 2,010' E of John Paine (Future) to Fort Wort (US 377) $ 7,037,000
B-14PABrush Creek (4) Fort Worth (US 377) to Country Club $ 13,299,000
B-15PAHickory Creek (1) Country Club to Riverpass $ 10,344,000
B-16PAHickory Creek (2) Riverpass to Montecito $ 3,681,000
B-17PAHickory Creek (3) Montecito to Teasley $ 7,254,000
B-18PA (1/3)Hickory Creek (4) Teasley to Nautical $ 339,000
B-19PA (2/3)Hickory Creek (5) Nautical to Erin $ 740,000
B-20PAHickory Creek (6) Erin to State School Road (Future) $ 875,000
B-21CJohn Paine-Fort Worth Collector John Paine to Fort Worth (US 377) $ 3,615,000
B-22CJohn Paine Vintage to 135' N of Athens $ 11,215,000
B-23SABonnie Brae (4) I-35E SBFR to Vintage $ 11,900,433
B-24SABonnie Brae (5) Vintage to Fort Worth (US 377) $ 8,348,000
B-25CHighland Park 130' S of Willowcrest to Roselawn $ 3,090,000
B-26PAFort Worth (US 377) I-35E to S City Limits $ 9,079,000
B-27SAFM 1830 (1) Fort Worth (US 377) to Brush Creek (Realigned) $ 3,489,600
B-28SAFM 1830 (2) Country Club to Hickory Hill $ 2,711,000
B-29SACountry Club FM 1830 (Realigned) to S City Limits $ 9,964,000
B-30COld Alton-Hickory Hill Collector Old Alton to Hickory Hill $ 2,160,000
B-31CRyan-Creekdale Collector Ryan to Creekdale $ 2,630,000
B-32PATeasley Sundown to S City Limits $ 5,250,000
B-33SABrinker (2) I-35E NBFR to Windriver $ 5,156,000
Service Area Project Cost Subtotal$ 174,645,222
2015 Roadway Impact Fee Study Cost Per Service Area$ 55,300
Total Cost in SERVICE AREA B$ 174,700,522
a. These planning level cost projections have been developed for Impact Fee calculations only and should not be used for any
future Capital Improvement Projects within the City of Denton.
b. These n standards or the determination of the City Engineer for
a specific project.
2015 Roadway Impact Fee Study January 2016
28
City of Denton, Texas
Table 5.C 10-Year Roadway Impact Fee CIP
with Conceptual Level Cost Projections Service Area C
Service Cost in Service
Proj. #ClassRoadwayLimits
AreaArea
C-1SAMilam (1) I-35 SBFR to 175' E of I-35 NBFR $ 2,561,000
C-2SAMilam (2) 175' E of I-35 NBFR to FM 2164 (Locust) $ 8,136,500
C-3CBobcat 1,105' W of Milam Ridge to HOD N-S Secondary Arterial $ 2,692,000
C-4PAGanzer230' W. of Rector to Future Cindy$ 2,729,500
C-5PAGanzer/Long (1) 625' W of I-35 SBFR to 350' E of I-35 NBFR $ 3,529,000
C-6SAGanzer/Long (2) Ganzer to FM 2164 (Locust) $ 15,614,000
C-7CBarthold-Cindy Collector Barthold to 1,135' W of Cindy (Future) $ 1,292,000
C-8CMasch Branch-I-35 Collector 1,295' W of I-35 to I-35 $ 1,603,000
C-9SAHOD E-W Secondary Arterial (1) HOD N-S Secondary Arterial to 840' E of HOD N-S Secondary Arterial $ 1,286,000
C-10SAHOD E-W Secondary Arterial (2) 840' E of HOD N-S Secondary Arterial to 130' E of Bonnie Brae (Existing) $ 1,447,000
C-11SAHOD E-W Secondary Arterial (3) 130' E of Bonnie Brae (Existing) to FM 2164 (Locust) $ 20,940,000
C-12PAHWY 1173 (1) 460' E of Masch Branch (Existing) to 375' E of Barthold (Future) $ 403,900
C-13PAHWY 1173 (2) Cindy to I-35 SBFR $ 961,600
C-14PA (1/3)Elm (US 377) I-35 NBFR to Elm/Locust Couplet $ 1,075,000
C-15CHercules 115' E of Northpointe to Locust $ 1,760,000
C-16SAWestgate (E-W) Westgate (N-S) to Bonnie Brae $ 4,353,000
C-17CRiney (1) Bonnie Brae to 990' W of Elm $ 1,381,000
C-18CRiney (2) 990' W of Elm to Elm $ 1,263,000
C-19SAMasch Branch-I-35 Secondary Arterial Masch Branch to I-35 SBFR $ 10,767,000
C-20SAJim Christal (1) 490' E of C. Wolfe to Thomas J. Egan $ 3,758,500
A-2, C-21SAJim Christal (2) 225' E of Future Loop to Masch Branch $ 3,466,500
A-3, C-22PAJim Christal (3) Masch Branch to Scripture $ 7,196,500
C-23SANail (1) University to 2,240' S of University $ 1,598,500
C-24SANail (2) 2,240 S of University to Jim Christal $ 3,501,000
C-25CThomas J Egan (1) 555' N. of University to 550' S of University $ 1,270,000
C-26CThomas J Egan (2) 550' S of University to Jim Christal $ 1,339,000
C-27PAFuture Loop (1) University to 745' N of Jim Christal $ 1,316,400
C-28PAMasch Branch (1) 1,290' S of HWY 1173 to Miller $ 3,448,000
C-29PAMasch Branch (2) 895' W of Future Loop to 1,255' N of University $ 5,485,000
C-30PAMasch Branch (3) 1,255' N of University to Jim Christal $ 9,246,000
C-31SALover's Lane (1) HWY 1173 to 325' N of Fruth $ 1,089,000
C-32SALover's Lane (2) 325' N of Fruth to 340' N of Littlebrook $ 1,119,000
C-33SALover's Lane (3) 340' N of Littlebrook to Hook $ 333,000
C-34SALover's Lane (4) Hook to Masch Branch-I-35 SA $ 4,920,000
C-35SABarthold Ganzer to City Limits $ 2,119,500
C-36SACindy (1) Ganzer to 1,280' S of Ganzer $ 1,067,500
C-37SACindy (2) 1,280' S of Ganzer to Masch Branch-I-35 Collector $ 3,355,000
C-38SACindy (3) FM 1173 (Future) to 150' S of Future Loop $ 2,884,000
C-39SACindy (4) 1,050' N of Masch Branch-I-35 PA to Tieszen $ 6,476,000
C-40SACindy (5) Tieszen to University $ 2,806,000
C-41PA (2/3)Western (1) University to Jim Christal $ 4,650,000
C-42CMilam-Bobcat Col Milam to Bobcat (Future) $ 2,842,000
C-43SAHOD N-S Secondary Arterial (1) Milam to 220' S of Bobcat $ 5,079,000
C-44SAHOD N-S Secondary Arterial (2) 2830' N of Elm to Elm $ 3,899,000
C-45SAHeritage Trail University to Scripture $ 6,239,000
C-46PABonnie Brae (1) Milam to Loop 288 EBFR $ 32,903,000
C-47SABonnie Brae (2) Loop 288 EBFR to 860' N of Riney $ 3,603,000
C-48,E-14SABonnie Brae (3) University to I-35 $ 2,975,108
C-49CFallmeadow 140' S of Meadow Edge to Gardenview $ 810,000
C-50,D-44PAFM 2164 (Locust) (1) City Limits to Loop 288 WBFR $ 2,319,500
C-51,D-45PAFM 2164 (Locust) (2) Loop 288 WBFR to Elm $ 1,156,900
Service Area Project Cost Subtotal$ 218,065,408
2015 Roadway Impact Fee Study Cost Per Service Area$ 55,300
Total Cost in SERVICE AREA C$ 218,120,708
a. These planning level cost projections have been developed for Impact Fee calculations only and should not be used for any
future Capital Improvement Projects within the City of Denton.
b. These
a specific project.
HOD: Hills of Denton
2015 Roadway Impact Fee Study January 2016
29
City of Denton, Texas
Table 5.D 10-Year Roadway Impact Fee CIP
with Conceptual Level Cost Projections Service Area D
Service Cost in Service
Proj. #ClassRoadwayLimits
AreaArea
D-1CFM 2164-Brittany Hill Collector (1) 1,605' E of FM 2164 to 745' W of Mesquite Ridge $ 2,603,000
D-2CFM 2164-Brittany Hill Collector (2) 745' W of Mesquite Ridge to Mesquite Ridge $ 395,500
D-3CFM 2164-Brittany Hill Collector (3) Mesquite Ridge to Brittany Hill $ 2,115,000
D-4SAFM 2153 (Realigned) City Limits to 620' S of Somerset $ 2,217,400
D-5PAFM 2164-FM 2153 (Realigned) PA FM 2164 (Locust) to Indian Wells (Future) $ 8,426,000
D-6PAFM 2164-FM 2153 (Realigned) PA Mesquite Ridge (Future) to FM 2153 (Realigned) $ 18,496,000
D-7SAFM 2164-FM 2153 SA (1)FM 2164 (Locust) to Indian Wells (Future)$ 7,593,000
D-8SAFM 2164-FM 2153 SA (2) 540' E of Green Valley (Future) to FM 2153 $ 7,617,000
D-9SAShepard 1,490' W of FM 2153 to FM 2153 $ 2,265,000
D-10CGribble Springs-Chapman Collector 630' N of FM 2164-Brittany Hill Collector to Gribble Springs $ 7,471,000
FM 2164-Brittany Hill Collector to
D-11CMesquite Ridge (1)$ 2,431,000
400 N' of FM 2164-FM 2153 (Realigned) PA
400 N' of FM 2164-FM 2153 (Realigned) PA to
D-12CMesquite Ridge (2)$ 356,500
470' S of FM 2164-FM 2153 (Realigned) PA
470' S of FM 2164-FM 2153 (Realigned) PA to
D-13CMesquite Ridge (3)$ 447,000
1,005' S of FM 2164-FM 2153 (Realigned) PA
355' S of Covey to
D-14SABrittany Hill (1)$ 5,620,000
795' S of FM 2164-FM 2153 (Realigned) PA
795' S of FM 2164-FM 2153 (Realigned) PA to
D-15SABrittany Hill (2)$ 880,500
770' N of FM 2164-FM 2153 SA
D-16CFM 2153 (1) City Limits to Burger (S) $ 1,069,200
D-17CFM 2153 (2) Burger to FM 2153 (Realigned) $ 250,600
D-18CFM 2153 (Realigned)-FM 2153 Collector FM 2153 (Realigned) to FM 2153 $ 3,416,000
D-19SAFM 2153 (3) 620' S of Somerset to Sherman $ 699,400
D-20SAGreen Valley (1) Warschun to 860' S of Warschun $ 1,069,000
D-21SAGreen Valley (2) 860' S of Warschun to Sherman $ 2,954,000
D-22SAMilam (3) FM 2164 (Locust) to 605' E of FM 2164 (Locust) $ 667,000
D-23SABobcat (3) FM 2164 (Locust) to 515' E of FM 2164 (Locust) $ 621,000
D-24SACooper Creek (1) 860' W of Hartlee-Cooper Collector #1 to Hartlee Field $ 17,427,000
D-25SACooper Creek (2) Hartlee Field to University $ 15,731,000
D-26CGolden Circle Hartlee Field (Future) to Hartlee Field (Existing) $ 7,476,000
D-27SAHartlee Field (1) FM 2164 (Locust) to 500' E of FM 2164 (Locust) $ 658,000
D-28SAHartlee Field (2) West City Limits to 575' E of Woodland Hill $ 9,229,000
D-29CCollins Cooper Creek to Collins (Existing) $ 4,995,000
D-30CLong (1) FM 2164 (Locust) to 525' E of FM 2164 $ 431,000
D-31CLong (2) City Limits to Stuart $ 1,658,000
D-32CHartlee (1) Sherman to 480' W of Woodland Hill $ 2,129,000
D-33CHartlee (2) 480' W of Woodland Hill to Hartlee Field $ 643,000
D-34CLaney Webb to Post Oak (Future) $ 3,428,000
D-35CKings-Windsor Collector Kings Row to Windsor $ 356,000
D-36CWindsor 410' E of Saints to Cooper Creek $ 6,095,000
D-37SAMingo (2) University to Laney $ 10,183,000
D-38PAPost Oak (1) City Limits to University $ 24,774,000
D-39CDeerwood Hartlee to 680' N of Kings Row $ 3,349,000
D-40CHartlee-Cooper Col #1 Hartlee Field to Cooper Creek $ 2,730,000
D-41CHartlee-Cooper Col #2 Hartlee Field to Cooper Creek $ 3,914,000
D-42PASherman (1) Locust to Loop 288 WBFR $ 3,764,200
D-43PASherman (2) Loop 288 WBFR to City Limits $ 8,545,200
C-50,D-44PAFM 2164 (Locust) (1) City Limits to Loop 288 WBFR $ 2,319,500
C-51,D-45PAFM 2164 (Locust) (2) Loop 288 WBFR to Elm $ 1,156,900
Service Area Project Cost Subtotal$ 210,671,900
2015 Roadway Impact Fee Study Cost Per Service Area$ 55,300
Total Cost in SERVICE AREA D$ 210,727,200
a. These planning level cost projections have been developed for Impact Fee calculations only and should not be used for any
future Capital Improvement Projects within the City of Denton.
b. These
a specific project.
2015 Roadway Impact Fee Study January 2016
30
City of Denton, Texas
Table 5.E 10-Year Roadway Impact Fee CIP
with Conceptual Level Cost Projections Service Area E
Service Cost in Service
Proj. #ClassRoadwayLimits
AreaArea
E-1SAMingo (1) 435' NE of Bell to University $ 13,406,000
E-2CLattimore Ruddell to 475' E of Ruddell $ 807,000
E-3CAudra Bayfield to Loop 288 $ 1,505,000
E-4CBlagg Mayhill to Lakeview $ 6,701,000
E-5SAMcKinney (FM 426) Woodrow to East City Limits $ 4,829,400
E-6CDuchess (1) Woodrow to 115' W of Trailhead $ 4,125,000
E-7C (1/2)Duchess (2) 115' W of Trailhead to 1,000' W of Loop 288 $ 1,197,000
E-8CMorse (1) Woodrow to Shady Oaks $ 1,706,000
E-9SA (1/2)Morse (2) Kimberly to Mayhill $ 2,346,000
E-10SASpencer 485' E of Loop 288 to Mayhill $ 2,455,000
E-11CLakeview (1) Post Oak (Future) to 1025' E of Post Oak (Future) $ 839,000
E-12CLakeview (2) 2,745' E of Post Oak (Future) to Bishop Pine $ 1,555,000
E-13CEdwards 560' E of Mayhill to Swisher $ 3,794,000
C-48,E-14SABonnie Brae (3) University to I-35E NBFR $ 2,975,108
E-15CRuddell Mingo to Willis $ 424,000
E-16CMockingbird McKinney to 850' S of McKinney $ 697,000
E-17SABrinker (1) Shady Oaks to Spencer $ 4,138,000
E-18SAMayhill (1) University to Colorado $ 5,667,507
E-19PA (1/3)Mayhill (2) Colorado to I-35E NBFR $ 1,928,000
E-20PAPost Oak (2) University to 1,010' N of Blagg $ 3,465,000
E-21PAPost Oak (3) 1,010' N of Blagg to 1,650' S of Blagg $ 2,323,000
E-22PAPost Oak (4) 1,490' N of Mills to 2,400' N of McKinney $ 7,746,000
E-23PAPost Oak (5) 1,230' N of McKinney to Pockrus Page $ 33,321,000
E-24PAPost Oak (6) Pockrus Page to Lakeview $ 2,800,000
E-25CLakeview (3) 130' S of Rodeo to 735' S of Mills $ 1,844,000
E-26CTrinity-McKinney Connector (1) Trinity to 1290' N of McKinney $ 6,312,000
E-27SATrinity-McKinney Connector (2) 1290' N of McKinney to McKinney $ 1,695,000
Service Area Project Cost Subtotal$ 120,601,015
2015 Roadway Impact Fee Study Cost Per Service Area$ 55,300
$ 120,656,315
Total Cost in SERVICE AREA E
a. These planning level cost projections have been developed for Impact Fee calculations only and should not be used for any
future Capital Improvement Projects within the City of Denton.
b. These plan
a specific project.
2015 Roadway Impact Fee Study January 2016
31
City of Denton, Texas
F. Service Unit Calculation
The basic service unit for the computation of Denton Roadway Impact Fees is the vehicle-
mile of travel during the afternoon peak-hour (as explained on Pg. 20). To determine the
cost per service unit, it is necessary to project the growth in vehicle-miles of travel for the
service area for the ten-year period.
The growth in vehicle-miles from 2015 to 2025 is based upon projected changes in
residential units and employment for the period. In order to determine this growth,
estimates of residential units, basic employment, service employment, and retail
employment for 2015 were made, along with growth projections for each of these
demographic statistics through 2025. The Land Use Assumptions section of this report
details the growth estimates used for impact fee determination.
For the purposes of impact fees, all developed and developable land is categorized as
either residential or non-residential. For residential land uses, the existing and projected
number of dwelling units are estimated. The number of dwelling units in each service
area is multiplied by a transportation demand factor (discussed in more detail below) to
compute the vehicle-miles of travel that occur during the afternoon peak hour. This factor
indicates the average amount of demand created by the residential land uses in the
service area.
For non-residential land uses, the process is similar. The Land Use Assumptions section of
this report provides existing and projected number of building square footages for three
(3) categories of employment basic, service, and retail. These categories correspond to
an aggregation of other specific land use categories based on the North American
Industrial Classification System (NAICS).
Building square footage is the most common independent variable for the estimation of
non-residential trips in the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation
th
Manual, 9 Edition. This characteristic is more appropriate than the number of
employees, because building square footage is tied more closely to trip generation and
is known at the time of application for any development that would require the
assessment of an impact fee.
2015 Roadway Impact Fee Study January 2016
32
City of Denton, Texas
The existing and projected land use assumptions for the dwelling units and the square
footage of basic, service, and retail land uses provide the basis for the projected
increase in vehicle-miles of travel. As noted earlier, a transportation demand factor is
applied to these values and then summed to calculate the total peak hour vehicle-miles of
demand for each service area.
The transportation demand factors are aggregate rates derived from two sources the
th
ITE Trip Generation Manual, 9 Edition and the National Household Travel Survey
th
performed by the FHWA. The ITE Trip Generation Manual, 9 Edition provides the
number of trips that are produced or attracted to the land use for each dwelling unit,
square foot of building, or other corresponding unit. For the retail category of land uses,
the rate is adjusted to account for the fact that a percentage of retail trips are made by
people who would otherwise be traveling past that particular establishment anyway, such
as a trip between work and home. For example, a stop at a nearby supermarket on the
way home from work does not create a new trip onto the roadway network. These trips
are called pass-by trips, and since the travel demand is accounted for in the land use
calculations relative to the primary trip, it is necessary to discount the retail trip
generation rates to avoid double counting trips.
The next component of the transportation demand factor accounts for the length of each
trip. The average trip length for each category is based on the National Household
Travel Survey conducted by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA).
2015 Roadway Impact Fee Study January 2016
33
City of Denton, Texas
The computation of the transportation demand factor is based on the following equation:
TDFT*(1P)*L
bmax
where... Lmin(L*OD or 6)
max
Variables:
TDF = Transportation Demand Factor,
T = Trip Rate (peak hour trips / unit),
P = Pass-By Discount (% of trips),
b
L = Maximum Trip Length (miles),
max
L = Average Trip Length (miles), and
OD = Origin-Destination Reduction (50%)
The maximum trip length was limited to six (6) miles based on the maximum trip length within
each service area. Chapter 395 of the Texas Local Government Code allows for a service
area of six (6) miles, and the service areas within Denton are closely approximated with a
six (6) mile distance.
The adjustment made to the average trip length statistic in the computation of the maximum
trip length is the origin-destination reduction. This adjustment is made because the Roadway
Impact Fee is charged to both the origin and destination end of the trip. For example,
impact fee methodology will account for a trip from home to work within Denton to both
residential and non-residential land uses. To avoid counting these trips twice as both
residential and non-residential trips, a 50% origin-destination (OD) reduction factor is
applied. Therefore, only half of the trip length is assessed to each land use, and the total
trip is only counted once. This methodology is consistent with that used in the National
Household Travel Survey.
2015 Roadway Impact Fee Study January 2016
34
City of Denton, Texas
Table 6 shows the derivation of the Transportation Demand Factor for the residential land
uses and the three (3) non-residential land use categories. The values utilized for all
variables shown in the transportation demand factor equation are also shown in the table.
Table 6. Transportation Demand Factor Calculations
Variable Residential Basic Service Retail
T 1.00 0.97 1.49 3.71
P 0% 0% 0% 34%
b
L 9.79 14.65 14.65 5.60
L* 4.90 6.00 6.00 2.80
max
TDF 4.90 5.82 8.94 6.86
* Lis less than 6 miles for residential and retail land uses; therefore this lower trip length is used for calculating
max
the TDF for these land uses.
Variables:
TDF = Transportation Demand Factor,
T = Trip Rate (peak hour trips / unit),
P = Pass-By Discount (% of trips),
b
L = Maximum Trip Length (miles),
max
L = Average Trip Length (miles), and
OD = Origin-Destination Reduction (50%)
The application of the demographic projections and the transportation demand factors are
presented in the 10-Year Growth Projections in Table 7. This table shows the total vehicle-
miles by service area for the years 2015 and 2025. These estimates and projections lead to
the Vehicle-Miles of Travel for both 2015 and 2025.
2015 Roadway Impact Fee Study January 2016
35
City of Denton, Texas
2015 Roadway Impact Fee Study January 2016
36
City of Denton, Texas
Exhibit 4
COMMENTS
OFTHECAPITALIMPROVEMENTSADVISORYCOMMITTEE
OFTHECITYOFDENTON,TEXAS
TotheCityCounciloftheCityofDenton,Texas:
TheCapitalImprovementsAdvisoryCommittee(CIAC)bythisdocumentmakesitsfindingsand
commentsregardingLandUseAssumptionsandCapitalImprovementsPlanforthepossibleadoptionof
RoadwayImpactFeestotheDentonCityCouncil;
LandUseAssumptions
TheCIACreceivedthefirstpresentationfromstaffandtheconsultantontheLandUseAssumptions
(LUA)onJanuary14,2016.LandUseAssumptionsmustbedevelopedtoprovidethebasisfor
populationandemploymentgrowthprojectionswithinapoliticalsubdivisiontomeettherequirements
TexasLocalGovernmentCodegoverningimpactfees.Thelanduse
oftheChapter395ofthe
assumptionsarethenusedindeterminingtheneedfortransportationimprovementstoservefuture
development.ThemaximumRoadwayImpactFeedeterminationisrequiredtobebasedonthe
projectedgrowthandcorrespondingcapacityneedsina10yearwindow.
BasedonthepresentationanddiscussionsCIACrequestedadditionalinformationandclarificationon
theLUAaslistedbelow:
Providea10YearGrowthUnitsMapbasedontheLUAprojections
Providea10YearGrowthPercentageMapbasedontheLUAprojections
ProvideaGrowthasaPercentageofBuildOutMapbasedontheLUAprojections
OnFebruary4,2016,staffandtheconsultantprovidedanupdatetotheCIAContheLUAthataddressed
theCIACcommentsandrequestforadditionalinformationfromthemeetingonJanuary14.Basedon
thisupdatetheCIACagreesthattheLUAaspreparedbytheconsultantisacceptable.
CapitalImprovementsPlan
OnFebruary4,2016,thestaffandconsultantpresentedtheRoadwayImpactFeeCapitalImprovements
Plan(CIP)totheCIAC.Developmentofa10yearRoadwayImpactFeeCIPisrequiredperChapter395of
theTexaslocalGovernmentCode.TheRoadwayImpactFeeCIPisdevelopedtomeettheprojected
growthofresidentialandnonresidentialusesbasedonthe10yearLUA.TheRoadwayImpactFeeCIP
includesarterial(PrimaryandSecondary)facilities,collectorfacilities,andmajorintersection
improvementsthatservetheoveralltransportationsystem.Alloftheroadwayfacilitiesidentifiedfor
capacityexpansionareincludedintheadoptedDentonMobilityPlan.
TheCIACagreesthattheroadwaycapitalimprovementsplanaspreparedbytheconsultantis
acceptable.
Exhibit 5
ORDINANCE NO. _________________
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS APPROVING THE
LAND USE ASSUMPTIONS AND A CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PLAN
UNDER WHICH ROADWAY IMPACT FEES MAY BE IMPOSED FOR
DESIGNATED SERVICE AREAS; SETTING A DATE, TIME, AND PLACE
FOR A PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER ADOPTION OF ROADWAY
IMPACT FEES; AUTHORIZING AND DIRECTING THE CITY SECRETARY
TO PUBLISH NOTICE OF SUCH PUBLIC HEARING; AND PROVIDING
CONSTRUCTION AND SEVERABILITY CLAUSES.
WHEREAS, Chapter 395, Tex. Loc. Gov’t Code, provides the requirements and
procedures for adoption of land use assumptions, capital improvements plans, and impact fees;
and
WHEREAS, the City of Denton has appointed a Capital Improvements Advisory
Committee (CIAC) to advise the City Council concerning land use assumptions, capital
improvement plans, and roadway impact fees pursuant to Sec. 395.058, Tex. Loc. Gov’t Code;
and
WHEREAS, the City retained Kimley-Horn and Associates (“Kimley-Horn”) to prepare
a Capital Improvements Plan to identify capital improvements or facility expansions for which
Roadway Impact Fees may be assessed, which said plan is attached as Exhibit A hereto and
incorporated by reference herein (“CIP”); and
WHEREAS, Kimley-Horn, on behalf of the City, likewise prepared Land Use
Assumptions reflecting a description of five service areas and projections of changes in land
uses, densities, intensities, and population in each service area over a 10-year period, which said
assessment is attached as Exhibit B hereto and incorporated by reference herein (“LUA”); and
WHEREAS, the City has made a copy of the proposed land use assumptions, the time
period of the projections, and a description of the capital improvement facilities available to the
public by keeping a copy of the LUA and CIP in the City Secretary’s office and posting a copy
on the City Website on February 17, 2016, in conformance with Sec. 395.043, Tex. Loc. Gov’t
Code; and
WHEREAS, the CIAC submitted its written comments on the proposed LUA and CIP to
City Council on or about March 14, 2016; and
WHEREAS, a public hearing in front of City Council on the LUA and CIP relating to the
adoption of Roadway Impact Fees was conducted on March 22, 2016 and was published in
accordance with Sec. 395.044 of Tex. Loc. Gov’t Code; and
WHEREAS, the City Council desires to adopt the LUA and CIP for Roadway Impact
Fees; and after public hearing on this matter, the City Council finds that adoption of the LUA
and CIP are in the best interest of the citizens of the City of Denton; and
WHEREAS, the City desires to consider the adoption of Roadway Impact Fees at an
additional public hearing as required by Sec. 395.047, Tex. Loc. Gov’t Code, and hereby sets
such public hearing as stated herein; NOW THEREFORE,
BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DENTON,TEXAS:
SECTION 1. The recitals and findings set forth above are true and correct and are
incorporated into the body of this Ordinance as if fully set forth herein.
SECTION 2. The City hereby adopts the Kimley-Horn LUA and CIP attached as
Exhibits A and B hereto and approves said LUA and CIP in relation to the possible adoption of
Roadway Impact Fees.
SECTION 3. Chapter 395, Tex. Loc. Gov’t Code, supplements this Ordinance to the
extent that its provisions may be applicable hereto and, to such extent, its provisions are
incorporated herein. The terms and provisions of this Ordinance shall not be construed in a
manner to conflict with Chapter 395, as amended, and if any term or provisions of this Ordinance
shall appear to conflict with any term, provision or condition of Chapter 395 such Ordinance
term or provisions shall be read, interpreted and construed in a manner consistent with and not in
conflict with Chapter 395.
SECTION 4. On April 26, 2016, at 6:30 p.m. in the City Council Chambers at City
Hall located at 215 E. McKinney St., Denton, Texas, the City Council of the City of Denton,
Texas will hold a public hearing giving all interested persons the right to appear, be heard, and
present evidence for or against the adoption of Roadway Impact Fees.
SECTION 5.The City Secretary of the City of Denton, Texas, is hereby authorized and
directed to cause notice of such public hearings to be published once in the Denton Record
th
Chronicle before the 30 day before the public hearing. Pursuant to Sec. 395.049, Tex. Loc.
Gov’t Code, statutory notice must contain time, date, and location, along with a heading that
reads:
“NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING ON ADOPTION OF IMPACT FEES”
The statutory notice must also contain a statement of purpose as follows:
“THE PURPOSE OF THIS HEARING IS TO CONISDER THE ADOPTION OF
ROADWAY IMPACT FEES. THE AMOUNT OF THE PROPOSED IMPACT
FEE PER SERVICE UNIT IS $____________. ANY MEMBER OF THE
PUBLIC HAS THE RIGHT TO APPEAR AT THE HEARING AND PRESENT
EVIDENCE FOR OR AGAINST THE PLAN AND PROPOSED FEE.”
SECTION 6. If any provision of this ordinance or the application of any provisions to
any person or circumstance is held invalid, the invalidity shall not affect other provisions or
applications of the ordinance which can be given effect without the invalid provisions or
application, and to this end the provisions of this ordinance are declared to be severable.
ND
PASSED AND APPROVED this 22 day of March, 2016.
_________________________________
CHRIS WATTS, MAYOR
ATTEST:
JENNIFER WALTERS, CITY SECRETARY
BY: ______________________________
APPROVED AS TO LEGAL FORM:
ANITA BURGESS, CITY ATTORNEY
BY: _______________________________
City Hall
City of Denton
215 E. McKinney St.
Denton, Texas 76201
www.cityofdenton.com
Legislation Text
File #:ID 16-413,Version:1
AGENDA INFORMATION SHEET
DEPARTMENT:Department of Development Services
ACM:Jon Fortune
DATE:March 22, 2016
SUBJECT
ContinueapublichearingandconsideradoptionofanordinanceoftheCityofDenton,Texasdesignatinga
certainareawithinthecitylimitsofDentonasWestGateBusinessPark(WGBP)Investments,LTD.
ReinvestmentZoneNo.XIIIforcommercial/industrialtaxabatement;establishingtheboundariesofsuchzone;
makingfindingsrequiredinaccordancewithChapters312oftheTexasTaxCode;ordainingothermatters
relating thereto; providing a severability clause; providing for repeal; and providing an effective date.
BACKGROUND
TheCityofDentonheldaPublicHearingonMarch1,2016toallowinterestedpersonstospeakandpresent
evidencefororagainsttheestablishmentofReinvestmentZoneXIIIforcommercialindustrialtaxabatement.
ThePublicHearingwascontinuedtoMarch22,2016.Thepurposeofthezoneisforthedevelopmentofthe
West Gate Business Park (WGBP).
TheattachedordinanceestablishesReinvestmentZoneXIII.UnderChapter312oftheTexasTaxCode,
businessesthatreceivetaxabatementsmustbelocatedwithinareinvestmentzone,adesignatedareawhere
economicdevelopmentisencouraged.WestGateBusinessPark(WGBPInvestments,LTD),planstodevelop
anindustrialbusinesspark,inDenton.Thepropertyincludedwithintheboundariesrepresentsasiteof
approximately22acresgenerallylocatedSouthofWestUniversityDrivealongWesternBoulevard.City
Council’sadoptionoftheordinanceestablishingthereinvestmentzonewillallowCounciltoconsideratax
abatement agreement with WGBP Investments.
WGBPInvestmentsisanentitymadeupoflocalrealestateinvestors/developers,includingtheMartinoGroup
and Links Construction.
Thebusinesspark,whichwilleventuallyincludethreemulti-tenantbuildingstotaling413,000squarefeetof
newindustrial/manufacturingspace,providesamanufacturingandindustrialproductthatishigh-qualityand
focusedonattractingpremiertenantstoDenton.QualityIndustries,asupplierofmetalfabricatedproductsand
services to Peterbilt, has moved in as the business park’s first tenant.
PRIOR ACTION/REVIEW (Council, Boards, Commissions)
OnMarch1,2016,theCityCouncilopenedaPublicHearingonthecreationofReinvestmentZoneXIIIand
continued it to March 22, 2016.
City of DentonPage 1 of 2Printed on 3/17/2016
powered by Legistar™
File #:ID 16-413,Version:1
AttheFebruary10,2016meeting,theEconomicDevelopmentPartnership(EDP)boardreviewedtherequest
andrecommended(9-0)theconversionoftheChapter380AgreementtoataxabatementAgreementwithan
abatement of 60-70% for 10 years.
OnApril7,2015,theDentonCityCouncilapproveda10-year,60-75%Chapter380propertytaxrebate
incentive (Ordinance 2015-097).
AttheirFebruary10,2015,meeting,theEconomicDevelopmentPartnership(EDP)boardrecommended
approval of the Chapter 380 Incentive Agreement (9-0).
FISCAL INFORMATION
Establishing the reinvestment zone has no fiscal impact.
STRATEGIC PLAN RELATIONSHIP
TheCityofDenton’sStrategicPlanisanaction-orientedroadmapthatwillhelptheCityachieveitsvision.
Thefoundationfortheplanisthefivelong-termKeyFocusAreas(KFA):OrganizationalExcellence;Public
Infrastructure;EconomicDevelopment;Safe,Livable,andFamily-FriendlyCommunity;andSustainabilityand
EnvironmentalStewardship.WhileindividualitemsmaysupportmultipleKFAs,thisspecificCityCouncil
agenda item contributes most directly to the following KFA and goal:
Related Key Focus Area:Economic Development
Related Goal:3.4 Encourage development, redevelopment, recruitment, and retention
EXHIBITS
1.Exhibit 1 Reinvestment Zone Ordinance
Respectfully submitted:
Aimee Bissett
Director of Development Services
Prepared by:
Erica Sullivan, Economic Development Analyst
Economic Development Division/Department of Development Services
City of DentonPage 2 of 2Printed on 3/17/2016
powered by Legistar™
City Hall
City of Denton
215 E. McKinney St.
Denton, Texas 76201
www.cityofdenton.com
Legislation Text
File #:A15-0016b,Version:1
AGENDA INFORMATION SHEET
DEPARTMENT:Department of Development Services
ACM:Jon Fortune
DATE:March 22, 2016
SUBJECT
ConsideradoptionofanordinanceestablishingpublichearingdatesandauthorizingtheCitySecretaryto
publishnoticeforApril5,2016,andApril12,2016,forannexationofanapproximately23.24acreproperty
generallylocatedonthewestsideofGeeslingRoad,approximately700feetsouthofEastUniversityDrive
(U.S. 380), within the Moreau Forrest Survey, Abstract No. 417, in Denton County, Texas.
BACKGROUND
LocatedwithinDH-12ofthe2010AnnexationPlan,thesubjectpropertywasinitiallyscheduledforannexation
in2013.Becausethepropertywasbeingusedforagriculturalpurposes,however,thesubjectpropertyreceived
approvalofaNon-AnnexationAgreement(NAA)thatdelayedannexationuntilnosoonerthanAugust1,2020.
ThetermsoftheNAArequiredthatthepropertyremaininagriculturaluseorbesubjecttoimmediate
annexation.
InMay2015,aprospectivepurchaserofthesubjectpropertyheldaPre-ApplicationConference(PAC)with
theCity’sDevelopmentReviewCommitteetodiscussdevelopmentofthesitewithindustrialuses.Aspartof
thePAC,theprospectivepurchaserwasinformedthattheproposeddevelopmentwouldviolatethetermsofthe
NAAandtriggerimmediateannexation.InDecember2015,theprospectivepurchaserclosedonthepropertyto
becomethenewownerandsubsequentlysubmittedPreliminaryPlatandAnnexationapplicationstofacilitate
theindustrialdevelopment.Thepurposeofthisitemistoestablishpublichearingdatesfortheannexation
necessary for development of the site to proceed.
The tentative schedule for this annexation is as follows:
March22,2016-CityCounciltoconsideranordinanceestablishingpublichearingdatesandauthorizingthe
publication of notice of the public hearings.
st
April 5, 2016- 1 Public Hearing
nd
April 12, 2016 - 2 Public Hearing
st
May 3, 2016- 1 Reading of the Annexation Ordinance
City of DentonPage 1 of 2Printed on 3/17/2016
powered by Legistar™
File #:A15-0016b,Version:1
nd
June 7, 2016- 2 Reading and Adoption of the Annexation Ordinance
PRIOR ACTION/REVIEW (Council, Boards, Commissions)
On April 6, 2010, City Council adopted a 3-Year Annexation Plan for DH-12.
On August 16, 2011, City Council approved a service plan for DH-12.
OnDecember18,2012,theCityCouncilapprovedanNAAforthesubjectpropertythroughAugust1,2020
with terms that the property remain in agricultural use or be subject to immediate annexation.
STRATEGIC PLAN RELATIONSHIP
TheCityofDenton’sStrategicPlanisanaction-orientedroadmapthatwillhelptheCityachieveitsvision.
Thefoundationfortheplanisthefivelong-termKeyFocusAreas(KFA):OrganizationalExcellence;Public
Infrastructure;EconomicDevelopment;Safe,Livable,andFamily-FriendlyCommunity;andSustainabilityand
EnvironmentalStewardship.WhileindividualitemsmaysupportmultipleKFAs,thisspecificCityCouncil
agenda item contributes most directly to the following KFA and goal:
Related Key Focus Area: Economic Development
Related Goal: 3.4 Encourage development, redevelopment, recruitment, and retention
EXHIBITS
1.Location Map
2.Zoning Map
3.Ordinance
Respectfully submitted:
Aimee Bissett
Director of Development Services
Prepared by:
Mike Bell
Senior Planner
City of DentonPage 2 of 2Printed on 3/17/2016
powered by Legistar™
Site Location
0155310620
Feet
SITECOD
µ
ParcelsETJ
Roads
Date: 2/17/2016
The City of Denton has prepared maps for departmental use. These are not official maps of the City of Denton and should not be used for legal, engineering or surveying purposes but rather
for reference purposes. These maps are the property of the City
of Denton and have been made available to the public based on the Public Information Act. The City of Denton makes every effort to produce and publish the most current and accurate information
possible. No warranties, expressed or implied, are provided
for the data herein, its use, or its interpretation. Utilization of this map indicates understanding and acceptance of this statement.
Zoning Map
EC-I
IC-E
NRMU
EC-C
ETJ
NR-6
NR-2
A
RD-5X
0155310620
Feet
SITEAETJNR-6
µ
EC-CIC-ENRMU
Parcels
EC-INR-2RD-5X
Roads
Date: 2/17/2016
The City of Denton has prepared maps for departmental use. These are not official maps of the City of Denton and should not be used for legal, engineering or surveying purposes but rather
for reference purposes. These maps are the property of the City
of Denton and have been made available to the public based on the Public Information Act. The City of Denton makes every effort to produce and publish the most current and accurate information
possible. No warranties, expressed or implied, are provided
for the data herein, its use, or its interpretation. Utilization of this map indicates understanding and acceptance of this statement.